Drama, Narrative and Moral Education

《Drama, Narrative and Moral Education》由会员上传分享，免费在线阅读，更多相关内容在学术论文-天天文库。

Drama,NarrativeandMoralEducation Drama,NarrativeandMoralEducation:ExploringTraditionalTalesinthePrimaryYearsJoeWinstonTheFalmerPress(AmemberoftheTaylor&FrancisGroup)London•Washington,D.C. UKFalmerPress,1GunpowderSquare,London,EC4A3DEUSAFalmerPress,Taylor&FrancisInc,1900FrostRoad,Suite101,Bristol,PA19007©J.Winston,1998Allrightsreserved.Nopartofthispublicationmaybereproduced,storedinaretrievalsystem,ortransmittedinanyformorbyanymeans,electronic,mechanical,photocopying,recordingorotherwise,withoutpermissioninwritingfromthePublisher.Firstpublishedin1998ThiseditionpublishedintheTaylor&Francise-Library,2005.“TopurchaseyourowncopyofthisoranyofTaylor&FrancisorRoutledge’scollectionofthousandsofeBookspleasegotowww.eBookstore.tandf.co.uk.”AcataloguerecordforthisbookisavailablefromtheBritishlibraryISBN0-203-97549-9Mastere-bookISBNISBN0750707933casedISBN0750707941paperLibraryofCongressCataloging-in-PublicationDataareavailableonrequestJacketdesignbyCarolineArcherEveryefforthasbeenmadetocontactcopyrightholdersfortheirpermissiontoreprintmaterialinthisbook.Thepublisherswouldbegratefultohearfromanycopyrightholderwhoisnothereacknowledgedandwillundertaketorectifyanyerrorsoromissionsinfutureeditionsofthisbook. ContentsAcknowledgmentsviIntroductionviiPart1TheoreticalConsiderations1Chapter1NarrativeandtheMoralLife3Chapter2MoralMeaningsinLiteraryNarrativesandinMythsandFairy15TalesChapter3Myth,MoralityandDrama27Chapter4Re-castingthePhaedraSyndrome:MythandMoralityin39TimberlakeWertenbaker’sTheLoveoftheNightingaleChapter5Emotion,ReasonandMoralEngagementinDrama49Part2TheoryandPracticeintheClassroom61Chapter6DramaforMoralEducation:PotentialFeaturesandProblematic63AspectsChapter7ResearchingDramaintheClassroom75Chapter8TheBrahmin,theThiefandtheOgre:DramaasPedagogyforMoral87EducationChapter9JackandtheBeanstalk:EthicalExplorationandtheRisksof109CarnivalHumourChapter10TheStarMaiden:MoralandCulturalValues129Conclusion155Bibliography163Appendix1173Appendix2177 vAppendix3179Index181 AcknowledgmentsThisbookwouldneverhavebeencompletedwithoutthesupportandadviceofanumberofverybusypeople.Firstandforemost,IshouldliketothankProfessorKenRobinsonandProfessorFredInglis,whogaveoftheirtime,weregenerousintheirencouragementandhonestintheircriticism,throughouttheproject’sduration.Iwish,too,toacknowledgetheinfluenceonmyworkandonmythinkingofDrJonothanNeelands,DrMichaelGolbyandProfessorJackZipes.IamgratefultoProfessorCecilyO’NeillandDrMichaelFlemingfortheircriticalscrutinyofthetextandtheirtestingquestioningofit;toDrEleanorNesbittandDrVictorQuinnforsharingwithmetheknowledgeoftheirparticularspecialistfields;toBarbaraJusterEsbensenforherkindresponsestomyinquiriesandtomywife,Gill,andmychildren,MatthewandSally-Anne,fortheirpatienceandtoleranceoverthemanylongmonths,whenthebookalltoooftenloomedaslargeintheirlivesasitdidinmine.Thefollowingarticles,publishedinacademicjournals,havearisenfromearlierversionsofchaptersinthisbook.CHAPTER4hasappearedinanearlierversionas:RecastingthePhaedraSyndrome:MythandMoralityinTimberlakeWertenbaker’s‘TheLoveof,theNightingale’inModernDrama,vol.XXXVIII,no.4,Winter1995.CHAPTER5hasappearedinanearlierversionas:Emotion,ReasonandMoralEngagementinDramainResearchinDramaEducation,vol1,no.2,August,1996.CHAPTER10Part1hasappearedinanearlierversionasWhoseStory?WhoseCulture?MoralandCulturalValuesinBarbaraJusterEsbensen’s‘TheStarMaiden’inChildren’sLiteratureinEducation,vol27,no.2,June1996. IntroductionEarlyin1992,Iwasaskedtodosomedramaworkwithaclassof8–9-year-oldchildreninaprimaryschoollocaltotheuniversitywhereIwork.TheteacherwantedthedramatobecentredaroundThePiedPiperandtostretchoverfourone-hoursessions.LookingagainatBrowning’s(1993)versionofthetraditionaltale,Iwasamusedbythewittyandironicmoralizingattheendofthepoembutwasalsoimpressedbytheambivalentmoraltensionscreatedbythestory.ItmanagedtostrikechordswithinmewhichcouldbothcelebratethePiper’svengeanceandyetfeelsympathyforthosewhosuffersuchdirepunishment,appealingatoncetomyrationalsenseofjusticeandmynaturalhumansympathies.Iwonderedifourdramamightexploretheseconflictingmoraltensionsand,aftersomedeliberation,decidedtostartthedramawherethestoryends,inthecountrytowherethechildrenareledbeyondthemountain.Usingfreeze-frame,1thechildrencreatedimagesofaparadiseinwhichtheyhadeverythingtheycouldpossiblywant,andchosetodepictalandofice-creamtrees,computergames,funfairsandseeminglyinfiniteleisurefacilities.Idecidedtoworkagainsttheseimageswhichrepresentedhappinessinpurelymaterialisticterms.Castingmyselfinroleasasmallboy,Icreatedmyownimageofanunhappychild,gazingbroodinglyintothedistanceandclutchingasmall,spongeballinmyhand.Whenaskedtospeculate,thechildrenquicklyagreedthatthishadbeenagiftfrommyparents,thatIwashome-sickand,aftersomequestioningoftheboy,theydecidedthatthey,too,wouldliketoreturnhomeandseetheirfamiliesagain.Buthowcouldtheydothis?Intheensuingdrama,thechildren‘borrowed’thePiper’sfluteashelayasleep,onlytodiscoverthatitsmagicwouldnotworkforthem.WhenconfrontedbymyselfinroleastheangryandindignantPiper,theylistenedtohiscomplaintsagainsttheirparentsand,inparticular,theMayorandagreedthatthepeopleofHamelinhadbeenwrongtobreaktheirpromisebutinsistedthatitwasequallywrongforhimtomakethem,thechildren,sufferforit.IftheywouldagreetobringtheMayorbacktofacejustice,wouldthePiperbepreparedtoletthemgo?ThePiperwasunsureastowhetherhecouldtrustthemtoreturn;andtheywereunsurewhetherhewouldreleasethemiftheydid.Eventuallybothpartiesagreedtotrustoneanother—butbackinHamelinthechildrenfoundtheMayortobeabrokenman,wornoutandsickwithworryandguiltoverthecatastrophehehadcaused.Furthermore,henolongerhadanymoneytopaythePiperasithadallbeenspentonsearchingforthechildren.Uptothispoint,IhadbeeninroleasthePiperbutnowtwochildren,aboyandagirl,tookonthisrolecollectivelyasIcontinuedtoplaytheMayor.2TheylistenedwithgreatseriousnesstothestoryandthenforgavetheMayoron viiitheunderstandingthathemustneverbreakapromiseagain;and,tohelpensurethathewouldn’t,theboy-PiperannouncedthatheintendedtosettledownatlastandliveinHamelin,whichwouldenablehimtokeepaneyeontheMayor.AsMayor,Iacceptedtheseconditionsandthedramaendedwithacelebratorydance,asthejubilantchildrenwerepipedbacktotheirhomesinHamelin.Thisturnedouttobeoneofthosedramaswhichleavetheteacherwithawarmglowandthegut-feelingthatsomethingsignificanthasbeencreatedandsharedbetweenteacherandchildren.Thechildrenhadworkedwithenthusiasmandtheirreactionsandresponsesbothinsidethedramaandafterthelessonsshowedthattheyhadenjoyedandappreciatedthewholeexperience;butIwasmostpleasedbythewaytheyhadapparentlyengagedwiththemoralcontentofthedrama,exploringasitdidissuesofjusticeandvengeance,trustandforgiveness,andthenatureofhappiness.Atthetime,Iwasparticularlystruckbythechildren’simprovisationattheendofthedrama.InportrayingtheMayorasweak,illandrepentant,insteadofastheselfishtyrantthechildrenhadexpected,Iwasdeliberatelytryingtomakethemoralchoicesdifficultforthem.Intheevent,thecompassionandsensitivityarticulatedbythetwo8-year-oldswasbothsurprisingandmovingtome,asteacher.Theywantedjusticebutnotrevengeand,onhearinghowpoorandmiserableHamelinhadbecome,thegirlinroleasthePiperreplied:‘Thatwillallstopwhenthechildrenreturn.Justasmypipecouldawayhappiness,itcanpipeawaysadness,too’.Here,itseemedtome,wasanimpressivecelebrationoffairness,forgivenessandsocialharmony.Onevaluatingthesesessions,itoccurredtomehowmanyofmymoresuccessfuldramaswithyoungchildrentooktraditionalstories—usuallyfairystoriessuchasRumplestiltskinandJackandtheBeanstalk—astheirsourcematerialandhadattheirhearttheexplorationofmoralissues.Itwasevidentfromtheliteratureofdramaineducationthatthiswasanexperiencecommontootherprimaryschooldramapractitioners.3However,itwasequallyevidentthatlittlehadbeenwrittentoexplorethetwoquestionswhichinterestedmemost.Firstofall,whyshouldtraditionalstorieslendthemselvessoreadilytomoralexplorationthroughdrama?Myexperienceasateacherandasaheadinprimaryandmiddleschoolswasthatstorieswere,indeed,associatedwithmoraleducationbutusuallyinassemblies,wheretalesfromsuchvolumesasBailey(1981)carriedastraightforwarddidacticmessagedesignedtoillustratethat,forexample,lyingcouldbedangerous,thathumilitywasavirtueandthatflatterersshouldnotbetrusted.Thetraditionaltalesthatcouldbefoundinsuchvolumestendedtobefromreligioussources,suchastheBibleortheQu’oran,orfrombooksoffables,suchasthosewrittenbyAesop.WhathadbeenofinterestinthestoryofThePiedPiper,however,wasthemoralambivalenceofthepiperanditwasthisambivalence,Iwassure,thathadmadethedramapossible.ButthenatureofthisambivalencewassurelydifferentfromthatfoundinthefairytalesIhadworkedwith,wherethereweremoralambiguitiesimplicittothenarrativeoftenfarricherthanthemorallessonsthatthestorieswereapparentlysupposedtoillustrate.Thisprovokedanumberofassociatedquestions.Howcommonwasthisambivalenceinliteraryversionsoftraditionaltales?Wherediditcomefrom?Whenthesetaleshadbeenwritten,hadtheirpurposebeenmoralinstructionorfantasy ixentertainment?Werestoriesagoodwaytoteachchildrentobemoraland,ifso,inwhatsense?Asdramaseemedtoworksoeffectivelywithtraditionaltales,whattheoreticalgroundswerethereforseeingaspecialrelationshipbetweenthem?Thesecondareawhichinterestedme,andaboutwhichIcouldfindverylittletheoreticalanalysis,washowdramaanddramaticprocessescontributetowardmorallearning.Thiswasperhapsthemoresurprisingasitisacommonassumptioninschoolsandamongdramateachersthatdramahasaplaceinthepersonal,socialandmoraleducationofchildren.Therewereanumberofpublishedexamplesoflessonsinwhichteachersillustratedhowtheyhaduseddramaformoralpurposesbuttheywereusuallywritteninthespiritofadvocacyratherthanofcriticalanalysisandtheirintentionswereoftenasdidacticasthoseoftheschoolassembly(Hall,1988).SomeoftheirclaimsstruckmeasdubiousandtheirinterpretationsopentochallengeandIwonderedifthesamecriticismscouldbelevelledatmyownreadingofThePiedPiperdrama.Withamorescepticalframeofmind,Ispeculatedastowhetherthedramahadreducedtherich,moralambivalenceofBrowning’spoemtohumourlesspoliticalcorrectnessandIconsideredafreshthefinalactivitythathadsoimpressedmeatthetime.Ihadtried,indeed,torenderboththeMayorandthePiperasmorallyambiguous,wantingthechildrentoexploreamoralsituationwhichwasnotasstraightforwardasitfirstappeared.Onreflection,however,adecisionwhichoughttohavebeenverydifficultforthePiperhadnotprovenatalldifficultforthechildreninrole.Afterall,theMayorhadappearedaseverythingachildatschoolistaughttofeelsorryfor;old,infirm,pitiable,sad.Itwouldhavebeenheartlessindeedforthesewell-adjusted8-year-oldstodoanythingotherthanforgivehimand,whateverelseitmighthaveachieved,thedramadidnotseemtohavedeepenedtheirunderstandingofthePiper’sfeelingsofinjustice.Unintentionally,Ihadcreatedadilemmawhichwasnotmuchofadilemmaatall.Asacelebration,theendofthedramamightwellhavebeensuccessful;asachallenging,moralthoughtprocess,perhapssomewhatlessso.Herewasarichareaforresearchintotheoryandpracticebutonewherethereweredangersofmakingeducationalclaimswhichmightbedifficulttodefend.Andattheheartofitallwerevalues—cultural,moral,professionalandpersonal.Ihavebegunwiththisshortsummarynotonlybecausethisparticulardramacontributedtothegenesisofthebookwhichfollows,butbecauseitalsosignalssomeofthemoreproblematicelementswithinitsscope.Itsspecificfocusistherelationshipbetweendramaandtraditionalstoriesandtheirpotentialcontribution,whenusedtogether,tothemoraleducationofyoungchildren.Bytraditionalstories,Imeanthoseliteraryversionsoftaleswhichoriginatedfromoralsources.AsIwillshow,thisstudyhasnecessitatedaninquiryintoaspectsofnarrativetheory;cultural,literaryandtheatrehistory;moraltheory;moraldevelopmentaltheory;thepracticeandtheoryofdramaineducation;andissuesrelatingtoreflectivepractitionerresearch.Theoutcomewill,Ihope,beofinterestnotonlytopractitionersandacademicswhospecializeineducationaldramabutalsomorebroadlytoallthosewhohaveaprofessionalinterestinhowstories,dramaandtheartsingeneralcancontributetothemoraldevelopmentofyoungchildren.MoraleducationhasbecomeacontentiousandproblematicareaincontemporaryBritishsociety,characterizedasitisbyincreasinglysecularattitudesandculturalpluralism.4 xWithinthisclimate,manyteachershavebecomeuncomfortablewithatraditionalperspectivewhichassociatesmorallearningcloselywithconventionalChristianity.Influentialacademicshaveidentifiedtheseuncertaintiesandconflictualperspectivesascharacteristicofthepostmoderncondition.Theirargumentisthat,traditionally,beliefinreligionorphilosophiessuchasliberalhumanismhaveprovidedwesternsocietywithaformofcoherentagreementuponthevalueswhichshouldinformthemoralguidanceofitsmembers.SuchanagreedvaluessystemisdefinedbyLyotardasametanarrative,‘theprincipalwayacultureoracollectivitylegitimatesitself’(Connor,1989,p.32).AccordingtoLyotard,postmodernsocietyhaswitnessedtheweakeningofthemetanarrativeswhichdefineandattempttoupholdtheirdominantculturalvaluesatthecentreofcontemporarysociety.Incontrast,marginalcultureshaveproliferatedandstrengthenedandwehaveconsequentlyseen‘ashiftfromthemuffledmajestyofgrandnarrativestothesplinteringautonomyofmicronarratives’(Connor,1989,p.32).Thisstateofaffairs,characterizedbymoralrelativismanduncertainty,isonewhichmanyteacherswillrecognizeandthetensionsthiscreatescanonlybeexacerbatedwhenpoliticalpressureisbroughttobearinanattempttoreassertdominantculturalandmoralvalues.Indeed,atthetimeofwriting,thequestionoftheroleofschoolsinthepromotionofmoralvalueshasresurfacedattheforefrontofpoliticalandmediaattentioninthewakeofadebateintheHouseofLordsonJuly5th,1996,ledbyDrGeorgeCarey,theArchbishopofCanterbury.Abrieflookatthetoneofthedebateandatitspresentationinthepressdoes,Ibelieve,presentuswithasnapshotofthecomplextensionsthatunderlietheareaofmoraleducationincontemporaryBritainandtheresultantconfusionoverwhatformitshouldtake.DrCarey’smainconcernwastheclimateofmoralrelativismwhichpervadesmuchofpublicandprivatelifeinwhathedescribedas‘aworldinwhichtherearenorightsandwrongsexceptwhatweindividualsdeemtobetrueforourselves’(TheTimes,6July1996,p.9).Heaffirmedhisbeliefthatmostpeoplewantedafightbackagainstmoralrelativismandthat,forthistohappen,childrenneededtobetaughtrulesandamoralcode,andhehelduptheTenCommandmentsasthebestmodelwehaveofsuchacode.Healsoemphasizedtheneedforashared,moraldiscoursetopermitpeopletotalkpubliclyaboutreligionandmorality.Inacknowledgingtheimportanceofschoolsintheteachingofmoralmatters,hewelcomedtheconsultationinitiativeonmoralvaluesrecentlyundertakenbytheSchoolsCurriculumandAssessmentAuthority(SCAA)andarguedthataninitiativewasneededintrainingteacherstobringout‘themoralandspiritualaspectsofmanydifferentsubjects’.Carey’sspeechwasheraldedonthefrontpageofTheDailyTelegraphundertheheadline‘Careycrusadetoteachchildrenrightfromwrong’(TheDailyTelegraph,5July1996,p.1),andthefollowingdaythe‘MoralityDebate’wasgivenatwopagespreadinTheTimes.Hereasimilarheadline:‘Manwhowantsschoolstofocusonrightandwrong’(TheTimes,6July1996,p.9),profiledNicholasTate,ChiefExecutiveofSCAA.Theseheadlinessignalarevealing,politicallymotivatedsimplificationoftheagenda.Byemphasizingrightandwrong,theimplicationisthatthereexiststraightforwardabsoluteswhichschoolsarefailingtoteachorpaysufficientattentionto.TheemotiveuseofthewordcrusadeandthepresentationofTateasalonemantakingonthesefacelessandfailinginstitutionswas xiintendedtocastinaheroiclightthosewhowouldapparentlysupportsuchanabsolutistagenda.TheconceptofrightandwrongisintegraltoacodeofrulesandthosepartsofCarey’sspeechwhichemphasizerulesweregivenprominenceinthepress.Forexample,theTelegraphexplained:DrCareywillattackthemodernassumptionthat,whiletrivialoccupationslikefootballneedrules,lifedoesnot.Theyoungneedtobetaughttheserulessothattheycanhandlemoraldilemmasthatwillconfrontthemthroughtheirlives.(TheDailyTelegraph,op.cit.)Thestrongimplicationhereisthatmoraldilemmasresultfromalackofknowledgeofmoralrulesandthatthemorallifewouldberelativelystraightforwardifwehadinternalizedthem.Theintellectualweaknessofsuchanargumentisimmediatelyapparent.Inthefirstplace,knowingarulewillnotautomaticallyensurethatIkeepit,evenifIbelievethatitismorallyrighttodoso;inthesecondplace,amoraldilemmainvolvesmakingachoicewhenitisdifficulttoknowexactlywhatisright.Insuchcircumstances,aknowledgeofmoralrulesmightbejustifiablyseenasmakingthechoicesmore,notless,difficultfortheindividualinvolved.Carey’sspeechintheLordsdid,infact,makethisverypoint.‘Weallknowthatthetoughestmoraldecisionsarenotalwaysbetweenrightandwrongbutbetweentworightswhichpullindifferentdirections’(TheTimes,op.cit.,p.9).Rules,statesCarey,arenotinthemselvesenough;childrenmustlearn‘thejudgmenttoconfronttheconstantdilemmasoflife’(op.cit.,myemphasis).Whichamountstoafirmacknowledgmentthatmoraleducationismoreproblematicthanthelearningofrulesandcodes.Thissmallexampleisindicativeofanoveralltensionbetweenapoliticaldesiretoordertheprocessofmoraleducationalongabsolutistandstraightforwardprinciplesinthefaceofarealitywhichrefusestobeanythingotherthancomplexandproblematic.So,aspartofthisurgeforabsolutismandsimplicity,thepurposeofSCAA’sinvestigationintomoralvaluesisreportedas‘theproductionofapublicstatementofmoralrules’(TheTimes,op.cit.,p.8),andtheplaceofmorallearningwithinthecurriculumisseenassituatedfirmlywithinthedominanttraditionsofRE(ReligiousEducation)andtheschoolassembly.ThislatterpointwasmadeevidentbyGillianShepherd,theSecretaryofStateforEducationandEmployment,whocontributedtothedebatebysuggestingthat,ifthedailyactofcollectiveworshipenshrinedinthe1988EducationActweretobeproperlyenforced,thenmoralstandardsinschoolswouldimprove(‘Today’BBC,6July1996).ThisdesireforsimplicityisdetectablewithinCarey’sownwordsbutso,too,isarecognitionthatmoralitypersistsinremaininganareaofcomplexitywhichcontinuestogenerateprofounddisagreement.When,forexample,headdressesdirectlytheissueofmoralvaluesratherthanmoralrules,heiscompelledtoaskthequestions:‘Doweknowwhatoursharedvaluesare?Dowehaveany?Ifwedo,dowehaveavocabularythatpeoplearecomfortableinusinginordertodescribethem?’(TheDailyTelegraph,5July1996,p.29).Sharedvalues,ofcourse,arefundamentaltoanyagreedrulesystembuttheywillbedifficulttocodify,letaloneteach,ifitisopentodebateastowhetherthereexistsevenalanguagetodescribethemincontemporarysociety. xiiAcloselookatthesubstanceofCarey’sargument,therefore,revealsthat,despitehisChristianstance,threetenetsemerge:thattheteachingofrulesbythemselvesisinsufficientforapropermoraleducation;thatwehaveaneedtodevelopalanguagebywhichwecanexplorewhatoursharedmoralvaluesmightbe;andthatmoraleducationhasaplace‘inmanydifferentsubjects’,notsimplyRE.Eachofthesetenetsisofcentralconcerntothisbook,whichaimstoexplorewhyandhowstorieswhicharesecularintheirnatureandoriginatefromdifferentculturalsourcesmaybeusedtohelpchildrenarticulatemoralvaluesandexploremoralproblemsthroughtheartformofextemporarydrama.Apremisetothisstudyisthatvaluesareinescapableandpervasive:asConnorexpressesit:‘Weareclaimedalwaysandeverywherebythenecessityofvalueinanactiveandtransactionalsense’(1992,p.8).Valuesarepresentwithinthestories,withinthechildrenasmembersoffamily,schoolandpeergroupcommunitiesandwithinmyselfasteacher,researcherandwriter.Totalkofvaluesistotalkthelanguageoffeelingaswellasreason,ofcommitmentandconvictionaswellasdutyandobligation.Itisintheareaofvalueswherethevariousinterestswhichinformthedebateonmoraleducationmeet:thepolitical,theprofessional,theacademic,thepersonal,thecultural,creatingthenetworkoftensionsandcontradictionswithinwhichteachersfindthemselvesneedingtooperateandbeingcalledincreasinglytoaccount.Thewritingofthisbookandtheresearchwhichhasinformedithavebeenundertakeninaspiritofrecognitionandacceptanceofthiscomplexitybutalsointhebeliefthat,aspoliticalinterestinmoraleducationbecomesmoreintense,contributionsfromprofessionalsbaseduponresearchandreflectivepracticebecomemoreurgent.Soundprofessionalknowledgeisneededtoinformacontentiousandemotiveareaanditismyhopethatthisstudywillcontributetosuchknowledge.Theinterdisciplinarynatureofmyinquiryhasmeantthatithasbeenselectiveratherthancomprehensiveinthebroadanddistinctiveareasofmoraleducationanddramaeducation,lookingforareasofoverlapratherthanattemptinganexhaustivecoverage.NordoIattempttoprovethatparticipationindramapracticeswillmakechildrenmoremoralintheirbehaviour.Experiencehasledmetobelievethat,becauseoftheverynatureofdrama,childrenwhoparticipateindramaticactivitiescanlearntocooperate,gainasocialidentity,learnresponsibilitytoothers,understandtheneedforrulesandself-disciplineandgrowinselfesteem.Alloftheseareimportantaspectsofmoralgrowthwhichlieoutsidethespecificinterestsofthisbook.Thefocushereisonaparticularformofliterarynarrativeanditspotentialformorallearning;onthosemoraltheorieswhichbestinformushowthemorallifeisexpressedinthisliteraryform;howitrelatestotheartformofdrama;andhow,withinadialogicalrelationshipbetweendramaandtraditionalstories,childrencaninterpret,negotiateandarticulatemoralmeanings.Theresearchproceededalongtwoconnectedfronts,theoreticalinquiryandpracticalfieldwork,theoneinfluencingandinformingtheother.Itwasamajoraimofminetosustainadialogicalrelationshipbetweentheoryandpracticethroughouttheprocessand,inparticular,toavoidapproachingthefieldworkasatestofapre-ordained,theoreticalagenda.ToparaphraseLorraineCode(1991),myfearwasthatsuchanapproachmightcloseoffmorepossibilitiesfordiscernmentandactionthanitmightcreate.5However,forthepurposesoflogicalargument,thefinishedtextispresentedintwohalves.Part1 xiiiconsistsofabroadlytheoreticalargumentforusingdramaandtraditionalstoriesforthemoraleducationofprimary-agedchildren.ThefieldworkandrelatedanalysesarepresentedinPart2,whichconsistsofarationaleforthepedagogyofprocessdramaandaseriesofthreedetailedcasestudiesundertakenduring1993and1994.Chapter1offersabriefexaminationandcritiqueofcognitivedevelopmentaltheoriesofmoraleducation,inparticularthoseexpoundedbyLawrenceKohlberg.Isuggestthat,whenanalysedfromthecriticalperspectivesofpostmodernconsciousness,therationalmoralprinciplesitproposesasuniversaltruthsareopentoquestionasaretherigiddevelopmentalcategoriesitadvocates.Iproposethat,intheworkofCarolGilliganand,inparticular,AlasdairMacIntyre,wearepresentedwithalternativemodelsofthemorallifewhicharemoreinclusiveofemotion,contextandparticularityandwithinwhichwecanfindthediscoursenecessarytodevelopmoralunderstanding.Thisdiscourseemphasizestheroleofnarrativeunderstandingandthelanguageofthevirtues.Chapter2examineshowliterarynarrativescaneducateformoralunderstanding,drawingupontheoriesofferedbyBruner,GoldbergandinparticularBakhtin,withsubjunctivityanddialogismemergingaskeyrelevantconcepts.Itisevident,however,thattraditionaltalesareresistanttotheseconceptsandthatdebateovertheirmoralsignificanceischaracterizedbyprofounddisagreementsovertheirdidacticpurposes.Ianalysethesedisagreementsandproposethatthenarrativeformisinappropriatetomoralteachingofastraightforward,didacticnature.InChapter3,Ipursueanargumentwhichoffersaperspectiveinformedbythemythicandoraloriginsofthetalesasbestdisposedtohelpourunderstandingofhowtheycanbeharnessedforthepurposesofmorallearning.Iexplorehistoricalandculturalreasonsforunderstandingthefairytaleasmythandtherelationshipbetweenmyth,dramaticperformanceandmoralvaluesattheoriginsofwesterntheatrepracticesandwithintheperformativenatureoftheoraltradition.Thisanalysisemphasizestheneedtoregardmythicaltalesashistoricalandculturalconstructsopentochangeratherthanascarriersofuniversaltruths.Iconcludethat,forhistoricalandartisticreasons,dramacanbeseentobepartofaprocessofmorallearningwhichtakestheformofadialogicalengagementwiththevaluesoftraditionaltales.BywayofacasestudytoillustratehowmythisstillbeingreinterpretedandrenewedformoralpurposesincontemporaryBritishtheatre,inChapter4IanalyseTimberlakeWertenbaker’sTheLoveofANightingaleasafeministre-evaluationofthePhaedramyth.Iproposethatitdemonstrateshowtheatrecanbeusedeithertoeducateandempowerortomiseducateandoppress;andhowareassessmentofoursharedmythology,asenshrinedincanonicaltexts,isasocialandamoralnecessityandoneofthepotentfunctionsofthecommunalartformofdrama.Neo-Aristotelianideashaveinfluencedthemoralandmethodologicaltheoriesunderpinningthisstudyyet,inthefieldofdramaineducation,Aristotlecontinuestoexertverylittleinfluence.Chapter5attemptsareassessmentofthissituationandbeginswithacritiqueoftheobjectionstoAristoteliantheatreraisedbyBrechtandBoal,twoofthetheoristswhomostinfluenceeducationaldrama.Itproceedstofocusuponthecognitivenatureofemotionand,inparticular,uponhowthisrelationshipcaninformourunderstandingofcatharsis.DrawingupontheworkofMarthaNussbaum,Iarguethatcatharsisismoreaccuratelyviewedasaprocessofcognitiveilluminationthroughthe xivemotionsratherthanasoneofpurgationorpoliticalrepression.Reflectinguponthesignificanceofthisfordramateachers,IproposethatBeckerman’stheoryoficonicanddialecticactionpresentsuswithaperspectiveofmoralengagementindramawhichpermitsteacherstobeinformedbyBrecht,BoalandAristotle.Part2beginswithChapter6,inwhichIargueforthemoralexplorationoffairytalesthroughparticipatoryformsofeducationaldrama.Ifinditnecessarytoaddresstheargumentsofthosecriticswhohavequestionedthevalueagendasanduniversalistpreoccupationsofitsmorefamouspractitioners,notablyDorothyHeathcoteandGavinBolton.Irejecttheaccusationsthatuniversalismisinherenttotheformbutacknowledgethatthereisadangerindramateachersunwittinglyimposingtheirownvalueagendasandhencemakingquestionableassumptionsabouttheirteaching.Inthelightoftheproblemsanalysedinthepreviouschapter,IpresentinChapter7arationaleformyfieldwork,rejectingpositivistresearchparadigmsandarguingforanethnographicapproachthroughcasestudy.This,Ipropose,isamethodofinquirywhichmakespossibletheinterpretationandanalysisofvalue-orientedactionsinvalue-ladencontexts.Idetailthemethodologicalpracticesusedtogatherdata,listingandexplainingthosespecifictoeachcasestudy.Chapters8,9and10provideaccountsofthreecasestudies.Eachiscentredaroundadramausingaspre-textdifferentliteraryversionsoftraditionaltalestakenfromIndian,BritishandNativeAmericansources.Themixofculturaloriginwasintendedasadeliberateandpositiveresponsetothecontemporarychallengesofpluralismandculturaldiversityandthestorieswerechosenforthedramastheysuggestedaswellastheproblemsposedbytheirmoralvalues.Eachcasestudyconsistsofananalysisoftheproblematicvalueagendaofeachtale;anaccountofthedramalessonsandthecontextwithinwhicheachtookplace;andareflectiveanalysisofthelessons,focusingonissuesandthemesemergingoutoftherecordeddataratherthanfromapredetermined,theory-drivenagenda.Themainthrustofthefirstcasestudyishowtwoclassesof8and9-year-oldchildrenwereabletoreadthehiddenvaluesofaliteraryversionofanIndianfableandhowtheprocessofdramaenabledthemtoarticulatenewmoralmeaningsfromit.ThesecondcasestudylooksatthetensionbetweencarnivalfolkhumouranddidacticauthorialintentionsinversionsofJackandtheBeanstalkandhowadramawithsome6-year-oldchildrenusedcarnivalesquehumourtoenergizeanexplorationofthesemoraltensions.Thefinalcasestudyexploresissuesassociatedwiththetranslationofmoralandculturalvaluesfromonetraditionintoanotherinnarrativeandrepresentationalforms.Finally,theconclusionattemptstodrawtogethertheimplicationsofthebook’soverallthesisand,inrecognizingwhatithasleftunexplored,Imakesuggestionsastowhatfurtherresearchmightusefullybuilduponitsfindingsandastohowschoolsmightbenefitfromitsarguments.Notes1Freezeframeisacommonlyusedconventioninclassroomdrama,alsoknownastableauorstillimage.SeeNeelands(1992)p.57forabriefdescription. xv2Anothercommondramastrategy,wheremorethanonepersonplaysonecharactersimultaneously.SeeNeelands,op.cit.,p.60.3TheliteratureofprimaryschooldramawouldappeartotestifytothepopularityofThePiedPiperasadramatopic,particularlycentredaroundmoralissuesofonesortoranother.SeeFleming(1994)chapter1,pp.28–30,Davies(1983)andTarlingtonandVerriour(1991).4InanopinionpollconductedbyGallupandpublishedintheDailyTelegraphonJuly5th,1996,lessthan10percentofthosequestionedansweredthatthechurchhadhadanyinfluenceontheirmoralthinkingand49percentfeltthatthechurch’smoralguidancewasinadequate.5Code,L.(1991).Thisparaphraseistakenfromhercommentsonfeministmoralcritiquesonmoraltheories.Seep.107. xvi Part1TheoreticalConsiderations 2 Chapter1NarrativeandtheMoralLifeProblematizingMoralCognitiveDevelopmentalTheoryInthewinterof1987educationalistsaroundtheworldwereshockedtolearnthatLawrenceKohlberg,themostinfluentialresearcherintomoraleducationofhisgeneration,hadcommittedsuicide.Thisactwasapoignantandambiguousfootnotetothelifeofanacademicwhohadstriventoestablishtheuniversalprinciplesofmoraldevelopment.Inhislateryears,theepistemologicalvisionwhichhadunderpinnedhisresearchhadcomeunderincreasinglyvocalcriticism.Hiswasamodernistproject,foundeduponafaithingrandtheoryandabeliefintheexistenceofrational,universallawstoexplainhumandevelopmentandhumanbehaviour.Inretrospectitistemptingtoseehissuicideastragicallysymbolic,toviewitifnotasanadmissionoffailure,thenatleastasatestimonytodoubtsinwhathehadachieved.LawrenceKohlbergwasforemostofanumberoftheoristsandresearcherswhoattemptedtoapplycognitivedevelopmentaltheoriesoflearningtomoralgrowth.1Rejectingboththeteachingofmoralhabits,whichhedismissedasthe‘bagofvirtues’approachtomoraleducation,andalsotherelativistic-emotionalapproach,wherechildren’smoralhealthisbelievedtodevelopnaturallyfromthefulfilmentoftheiremotionsandneeds,Kohlbergbeganhistheoryfromadifferentphilosophicalpremise.Hisclaimwasthat,atheart,moralityrepresentsasetofrationalprinciplesofjudgmentanddecisionsvalidforeveryculture,theprinciplesofwelfareandjustice.Inaddition,heclaimedthathisresearchshowedhowindividualsacquireandrefinetheirsenseofjusticebypassingthroughasequenceofsixinvariantdevelopmentalstages.TheseweredividedintothreelevelswhichhenamedthePre-conventional,theConven-tionalandthePost-conventionalEachstage,Kohlbergargued,ischaracterizedbyaparticularstructureofthinkingandheproposedthatmoraldevelopmentshouldbeunderstoodaslinearprogression,capableofarrestationatanylevel.Whatcharacterizesthisprogression,accordingtoKohlberg,isanindividual’sincreasingabilitytoreflectautonomouslyandselflesslyuponthemoralprincipleswhichneedtobeappliedtospecificmoraldilemmasorproblems.2Thehigheststageofmoraldevelopmentisreachedwhenapersonappreciatesandisabletoapplywhathelabelledasuniversalethicalprinciples,thoseprincipleswhichhearguedanyhumanbeingwouldagree 4DRAMA,NARRATIVEANDMORALEDUCATIONtoifabletoviewasituationquiteimpartially;inthewordsofthephilosopherJohnRawls(1977),‘frombehindaveilofignorance’.Kanthadfirstproposedwithhiscategoricalimperativeauniversalprincipleofmorallawbaseduponjusticeandreason;andthat:‘moralimperativesexerciseabsoluteoruniversalandnotmerelyparticularorcontingentauthority’(Carr,1991,p.81).Kohlberg’sunderstandingofmoralitywasKantianinitsformbutthesourceofhiscognitivedevelopmentalapproachtotheacquisitionofmoralknowledgewastheworkofJeanPiaget.ItwasPiagethimself,infact,whohadfirstundertakenthetaskofstructuringatheorytoexplaintheuniversalprinciplesofchildren’smoralgrowth(Piaget,1932).Piagetsawrulesasthebasisofallmoralactionandsuggestedthathisresearchshowedagrowthinattitudetorulesandrule-keepingfromheteronomy,whererulesaregivenbyexternalauthority,toautonomy,wheretheyaremutuallyagreed,acceptedandinternalized.KohlbergopenlyacknowledgedhisindebtednesstoPiagetandsawhisownresearchasacontinuationoftheworkhehadbegun.Buthewasnottheonlycognitivedevelopmentaltheoristtogaincredenceduringthe1950s,1960sand1970s;Selman(1976)andLoevinger(1976)bothproposedstagetheoriestoexplainpersonalandmoralgrowthbutoneoftheearliesttodosowasErikson,whoin1950proposedeightlevelsofdevelopmentwhichhetermedtheEightAgesofMan(Erikson,1977,pp.222–43).ThereisrathermoreFreudthanPiagetinErikson’stheory,but,likeKohlberg,hisdevelopmentalstagesareheirarchical,sequentialandculminateinauniversalmodeloffullydeveloped,moralhumanity;inErikson’scase,thishigheststageofmoralbeingischaracterizedbyEgoIntegrity,where,coupledwithwhathecallsthevirtueofwisdom:‘Thestyleofintegritydevelopedbyhiscultureorcivilizationthusbecomesthe“patrimonyofthesoul”,thesealofhismoralpaternityofhimself’(1977,p.242).Awareaswenowareoffeministtheory,wemaywellwinceatthepreeminenceofmale,patriarchalreferencesinsuchadescriptionofthemoraluniverse.Ofcourse,Eriksonwaswritingbeforecontemporarysensibilitieshadbeensubjectedtoafeministcritiqueoflanguageusage;butitisthisveryneedtojudgeitwithinthecontextofitstimewhichunderminestheuniversalistclaimsitmakes.Cognitive,moraldevelopmentaltheoriessoughttoestablishobjective,universallawstoaccountforthemoralgrowthofthepersonality;however,itisfarfromproventhatthestructuralcategoriestheircreatorsproposedwerethefundamentallawstheyclaimedthemtobe.TheresearchofMargaretDonaldson,forexample,hasrevealedadeepflawintheoverarchingstructureofPiagetiandevelopmentalstagetheorywhichpremisedbothhisandKohlberg’smoralprojects.DonaldsonshowedthattherigidhierarchyofcognitiveprogressionwhichPiagetclaimedtohaveprovendidnothold.Forexample,Piagethadobservedaninabilityinchildrenundertheageof6todecentre,butDonaldsoncoulddescribetestswhichshowedthat,givensituationswhichwerecontextualizedinsuchawayastomakehumansense,childrenmuchyoungerthan6and7could,indeed,seethingsfromanother’sperspective(Donaldson,1978,pp.19–24).HerstressontheinadequacyoftheresearchtaskssetbyPiaget,andhislackofrecognitionoftheimportanceofcontextualdetailsinchildren’sthinking,weretohaveanimportantecholater,incriticismsofKohlberg’sresearchmethodology,asweshallsee. NARRATIVEANDTHEMORALLIFE5Thereis,ofcourse,muchthatisempiricallylogicalinmanyoftheobservationsmadebydevelopmentaltheorists.SoKohlberg’svisionofthemoralprogressionofthechildwhichseesamovementfromrelianceonauthoritytowardapositionwhereonecanoneselfassumethoseresponsibilitieswhichpertaintotheexerciseofauthoritymakeseminentandrecognizablesenseinourown,democratic,westernsociety.However,thisdoesnotmeanthatsuchaprogressionisstructurallyimplicittomoralgrowthforitassumesthehumanuniversalityofthemoralprinciplesitpromotes.BothEriksonandKohlberguseadiscoursewhichisnotablymodernist;rationalist,searchingtoprovideanall-embracinggrandnarrativetoexplainmoralaction,irrespectiveofsuchimportantconstituentsofthehumanmoralidentityascultureandgender,andprescribinguniversalmoralpreceptswhicharetacitlybutnotablycongruentwiththevaluesofwesternliberalism.ThustheperfecthumanbeingaccordingtoKohlberg’sandErikson’smoralcategorieswouldbeanimpartial,unprejudiced,calm,consideratephilosopher,self-sufficient,autonomousandsociallywell-integrated,aperfectcitizeninatwentiethcenturywesterndemocracybutsomewhatoutofplaceinHomericGreeceor,indeed,inamodernday,fundamentalist,Islamiccommunity.Theirtheoriesaresusceptibletoapoststructuralistcritiqueandtothecriticisms,summarizedbyBenhabib,whichcharacterizepostmodernthought:IfthereisonepositionwhichunitespostmodernistsfromFoucaulttoDerridatoLyotarditisthecritiqueofwesternrationalityasseenfromtheperspectiveofthemargins,fromthestandpointofwhatandwhoitexcludes,suppresses,delegitimates,rendersmad,imbecilicorchildish.(citedinNicholson,1993,p.19)ThisdoesnotdisproveperseeitherKohlberg’sorErikson’sviewsofwhatconstitutesthemoralhumanbeingbutitshowsthatthefoundationsoftheirtheoriesarefarfromthevalue-free,objectiveperspectivestheyclaimedthemtobe.Inthepostmodernworld,grandtheoriesareundersiegefromfeminists,culturalminoritiesandthemanyvoicesontheperiphery.Thewholeconceptofmoralityarguedbyboththeoristscanbedisputedfromtheperspectiveofanyofthesevoices.3Itisunsurprising,therefore,thatthemostcoherentcritiqueofKohlberg’ssystemhascomefromoneofthesevoices,thatofhisone-timecollaborator,thefeministmoralresearcher,CarolGilligan.Gilligan’sEthicofCareandNarrativeMoralTheoryInherbookInaDifferentVoice,publishedin1982,Gilliganclaimedthat,whendevelopinghistheories,Kohlberg’sresearchwasgender-biased;shearguedthatbothPiaget’sresearchintogamesandrulesandherownsubsequentinterviewswithfemalerespondentsrevealedthatadevelopmentaltheorywhichconcentratedontheprincipleofimpartialJusticewasdiscriminatorytowardthewaywomenapproachedmoraldilemmas.Heroverallthesis,developedinsubsequentresearchandpublications,hasbeensummarizedbyFlanaganandJacksonthus4: 6DRAMA,NARRATIVEANDMORALEDUCATIONGilligandescribesamoraluniverseinwhichmen,moreoftenthanwomen,conceiveofmoralityassubstantivelyconstitutedbyobligationsandrightsandasprocedurallyconstitutedbythedemandsoffairnessandimpartiality,whilewomen,moreoftenthanmen,seemoralrequirementsasemergingfromtheparticularneedsofothersinthecontextofparticularrelationships.(1993,p.70)Thisviewofmoralityshedefinesas‘anethicofcare’andalthoughherresearchsawitasexpressedmainlybywomen,herintentionwasnottoplacemenandwomenwithindifferentmoraluniversesbuttochallengeKohlberg’sKantianviewofthenatureandoriginofmoralaction.ForGilliganeachpersonisembeddedinawebofongoingrelationships,andmorality,importantlyifnotexclusively,consistsinattentionto,understandingof,andemotionalresponsivenesstowardtheindividualswithwhomonestandsintheserelationships.(Blum,1993,p.50)Notsurprisingly,Gilligan’sworkhasfoundfavourwithpostmodernistsandfeminists,whoseeinitapowerfulassaultontheEnlightenmentproject.Shehashadaprofoundimpactontheperspectivesoffeministresearchersintomoraleducation(Noddings,1984;NoddingsandWitherell,1991)andonotherswhohavesoughttoviewmoralgrowthasotherthanlinearinnatureandhierarchicalinstructure.Instead,Gilliganandherfollowershavesoughttoplacenarrativeatthecentreofthemorallife.AlookatwhatBlumseesasthemajordifferencesbetweenherowntheoriesandthoseofKohlbergisausefulpreludetounderstandingwhythisshouldbe.AccordingtoBlum(1993,pp.50–3),therearesevensuchdifferencesandIparaphrasethembelow:1ForGilligan,themoralselfisthickratherthanthin,definedbyhistoricalconnectionsandrelationships.WhereasKohlbergdefinesthemoralpointofviewastotallyimpersonalandobjective,forheritisanchoredinparticularity.2ForGilliganthisradicalparticularizationoftheselfextendstotheother,whosemoralsignificancecannotbereduced,asKohlbergwouldhaveit,togeneralcategoriessuchas‘friend’and‘personinneed’.Moralaction,therefore,isirreduciblyparticular.3GilliganseestheunderstandingoftheotherasafarmoredifficultandcomplexmoraltaskthandoesKohlbergandonethatnecessitatesastanceinformedbycare,empathy,compassionandemotionalsensitivity.4WhereasKohlbergproposesarational,autonomousselfsubjecttothelawsofabstractprinciple,Gilliganseestheselfas‘approachingtheworldofactionboundbytiesandrelationships(friend,colleague,parent,child)whichconfrontheras,atleasttosomeextent,givens’.(ibid,p.52)5ForKohlberg,formalrationalitygeneratesmoralaction,whereasGilliganseesitasnecessarilyinvolvinganinseparableintertwiningofemotion,cognitionandaction. NARRATIVEANDTHEMORALLIFE76GilliganrejectsKohlberg’suniversalisticprinciplesofrightactioninfavourofanotionof‘appropriateresponse’,appraisablebynon-sub-jectivestandardsofcareandresponsibility.7ForGilligan,moralityisfoundedinthecaringconnectionsbetweenpersons,whereasKohlbergseesrightprincipleastheinitialtouchstonefromwhichmoralactionneedstobejudged.Gilligan,then,definesmoralityintermsofrelatednessratherthanautonomyandembracesparticularity,complexity,andemotionalattachmentasopposedtoKohlberg’sinsistanceonuniversalityandrationality.Inhervision,justiceandcareco-inhabitmoralityandweneedtolistentoandexploreamultiplicityofmoralvoicesifwearetounderstanditsnatureanditsprocessesindifferentsocio-culturalcontexts.Viewedinthislight,moralknowledgeisnotapprehendedandunderstoodthroughtheexerciseofreasonalone;itistoodisparateandcomplexaformofknowledgetofitKohlberg’sdevelopmentalparadigm.Sheandherfollowersarguethatnarrativestory-tellingistheformbestsuitedtoholdandconveysuchknowledge.Tounderstandwhy,weneedtoappreciatesomethingofthecognitivenatureofnarrativeanditspervasivenessinourlives.Narrative,ispresentineveryage,ineveryplace,ineverysociety…narrativeisinternational,transhistorical,transcultural;itissimplythere,likelifeitself.(RolandBarthes,1977,p.79)InthewordsofBarbaraHardy(1977),narrativeisa‘primaryactofmind’,whichimpliesthatitisoneofthekeywaysbywhichweattempttoorganizeandmakesenseofourexperience.JeromeBruner(1986)hasarguedthatthereare,infact,twomodesofthoughtorwaysofknowing,theoneparadigmatic,theothernarrative,eachofwhichprovidesadistinctivewayoforderingexperienceandofconstructingreality.Brunerproposesthattheconcernsandparametersofthetwomodesofthoughtareverydifferent.Wejudgeastoryusingcriteriadistinctfromthoseweusetojudgeascientifichypothesis.Whereasthelatterstrivesforwell-formed,logicalargument,foruniversaltruthconditions,theformeraimsforverisimilitude.Inquiringmorespecificallyintothenarrativemodeofthought,hesuggeststhat‘Narrativedealswiththevicissitudesofhumanintention’(ibid.,p.16)andthatthenarrativeimaginationleadsto:‘goodstories,grippingdrama,believable(thoughnotnecessarily“true”)historicalaccounts’(ibid.,p.13).Arguingthatweshouldregardtheselfasdeeplyculturalinitsnature,hedrawsthefollowingconclusion:Insofarasweaccountforouractionsandthehumaneventsthatoccuraroundusprincipallyintermsofnarrative,story,drama,itisconceivablethatoursensitivitytonarrativeprovidesthemajorlinkbetweenourownsenseofselfandoursenseofothersinthesocialworldaroundus.(ibid.,p.69)GivenGilligan’semphasisuponthesocio-culturalembeddednessofmoralknowledge,herbeliefthatitisfoundedandconstructedwithinparticularrelationshipsofcareand 8DRAMA,NARRATIVEANDMORALEDUCATIONconnection,thennarrativediscourseasdefinedbyBrunerbecomesthenaturalformthroughwhichwemakemoralsenseofourlives.LikeGilligan,Brunerseessuchknowledgeassimultaneouslyrationalandaffective,enablingusto‘perceive,feelandthinkatonce’(1986,p.69).Narrative,therefore,canconveythemessinessofrealityandthemorallifeandalsosomethingofitsthicknessandcomplexity.TheoristsandresearcherswhohavebeeninfluencedbyGilliganhaveconcludedthatitisthroughthenarrativemodeofthoughtthatthemorallifecanbebroached,understoodandexplained;andthatitisthroughstoriesthatourethicalpropensitiesdevelop(Day,1991a,1991b;Freeman,1991,1993;Tappan,1991a,1991b;NoddingsandWitherell,1991;WitherellandPope-Edwards,1991).Thefocusoftheirattentiontendstowardpeople’sstoryingoftheirownmoralexperience,nottheirunderstandingofitthroughworksofnarrativefiction.Theyconcentrateuponnarrativeasawayofthinking,notuponworksofliterature;uponthecontentofpersonalnarrativesasthewaytofindanddefineanindividualmoralvoice.Thisapproach,mistrustinganyideologicalimpositionofmoralvalues,seeingvaluesasshiftingandunstable,respectingdifferenceandchoice,resonatesstronglywiththesentimentsofpostmodernismandaclimateofmoralrelativism.AlasdairMacIntyreandtheAristotelianTraditionIfGilligan’stheoriesemanatefromhercritiqueonKohlberg,thoseofAlasdairMacIntyrearisefromamoredirectattackonKohlberg’sphilosophicalantecedent,ImmanuelKant,andupontheEnlightenmentProjectwhichheinstigatedinanattempttoestablishabasisformoralityfoundeduponreasonalone.MacIntyre’saimistorefutethemoralrelativismandemotivistthinkingwhichpermeatescontemporarythinkingand,fromhishistoricalandphilosophicalinvestigationsintothefailureoftheEnlightenmentProject,heproposesanalternativemoraltraditionasthebestexamplewepossessofacoherentmoralepistemology.Indoingso,heplacesnarrativeattheheartofhisconceptoftheunityofthemorallifeandathowmoralityislearned.Likeanumberofotherrecentethicaltheorists(forexampleNussbaum,1986;Taylor,1989),MacIntyreseestheAristoteliantraditionasprovidinguswiththebestguidetothemorallife.HearguesthatcontemporarywesternsocietysuffersfromalackofanycoherentagreementaroundwhichmoraldebatecantakeplaceandheexplainsthisbypointingtohowEmotivism,aphilosophywhichrecognizesnoobjectiveorimpersonalmoralstandards,hasbecomeembeddedinourculture.Accordingtoemotivistthinking,ifIsayArsoniswrong,Iamunitingafactualstatement(thatarsondestroysproperty)withamoraljudgmentthatsuchdestructioniswrong.Onlythefactualstatementcanbeseenastrueorfalse,themoraljudgmentbeingnomorethananexpressionofattitudeorfeeling(MacIntyre,1981,p.12).Whatcharacterizescontemporarymoraldebateisitstendencytoarguefromrivalpremisessothatitceasestobeargumentanddescendsintoassertionandcounter-assertion;premisesthatinvokejusticeandequality,forexample,areoftenatoddswiththosewhichevokesuccessandlibertybutwehavenowayofagreeingonwhatthecorrectinitialpremiseshouldbe.ThislackofcoherencehetracesbacktothebreakdownoftheAristoteliantraditionandthesubsequentandinevitablefailureoftheEnlightenmentProjecttoreplaceitwithanewtraditionbaseduponreason.Thebook NARRATIVEANDTHEMORALLIFE9consistsofadetailedre-examinationandareaffirmationofthistradition,whichlastedfromearlyClassicalGreeceuntilthelateMiddleAges.Kanttookastheprime,moralquestion‘Whatrulesoughtwetofollow?’whereasAristotletookittobe‘WhatsortofpersonamItobecome?’(ibid.,p.118).Thisshiftinemphasismovesusawayfromuniversalmaximstowardcentralhumanpurposesandaconceptofmanasafunctionalbeing.Accordingtothattraditiontobeamanistofillasetofroleseachofwhichhasitsownpointandpurpose:memberoffamily,citizen,philosopher,servantofGod.Itisonlywhenmanisthoughtofasanindividualpriortoandapartfromallrolesthat‘man’ceasestobeafunctionalconcept.(ibid.,p.59)Inthisway,moralqualitiescanbeseentohavefactualvalue,inasmuchaswecandefinethequalitiesofagoodmemberofafamilyinmuchthesamewayaswecandefinethequalitiesofagoodwatch.However,suchanunderstandingdisappearswhenthenotionofcentralhumanpurposesisremovedfromconceptsofmorality;forMacIntyre,thiswasoneofthekeyerrorsofKantianphilosophy.Moraltruth,therefore,isnotdefinableasanabstract,universalprinciplebutisbestunderstoodaslocatablewithinthesocialrolesthatindividualsinheritandcreateforthemselves,withintheirownparticularteloswhichtheyeithersucceedorfailinfulfilling.Andinhisexplanationofhowanindividuallifecancometobeseenasmorallycoherent,hearguesthatsuchcoherenceiscapturedintheformofanarrative.MacIntyrecontendsthattheAristotelianmeaningofvirtueisonlyintelligibleasacharacteristicoftheunitarylifeandthatthisunitaryselfisonlycomprehensiblethroughnarrative,anarrativewhichisunavoidablyhistoricalandsocialinitsnature.Wearenevermore(andsometimesless)thantheco-authorsofourownnarratives….Inlife…wearealwaysundercertainconstraints.Weenteruponastagewhichwedidnotdesignandwefindourselvespartofanactionthatwasnotofourmaking.(ibid.,p.213)(ThefactthatheisdrawntowardusingspecificallydramaticimagerywhileexpressingthispointissomethingIshallreturntoinalaterchapter).Theunityofsuchalifeistheunityofanarrativequestwhichseeksanswerstothetworelatedquestions,‘Whatisgoodforme?’and‘Whatisgoodforman?’andwhatisgoodformehastoincludewhatisgoodforsomeonewhoinhabitsthesocialrolesIamapartof.Thisnarrativeviewoftheself,therefore,bringstogetherthehistoricalandsocialidentitiesoftheindividualandemphasizescommunityratherthanautonomy.Individualscanmoveforwardfromtheirmoralparticularitiesinsearchoftheuniversalbutcannotobliteratethemandescapeintoarealmofentirelyuniversalmaxims,asKantsuggestedtheycould.Whentheytry,theyusuallybehaveworsethantheyotherwisewould;(whetherthismaximbeSocialisminOneNationortheIrresistibilityofMarketForces,recentwesternexperiencewouldappearstronglytosupportthisview). 10DRAMA,NARRATIVEANDMORALEDUCATIONMacIntyre’sthesisgivescentralimportancenotonlytothetheoryofnarrativeasamorallifelivedbuttotheimportanceofacanonofstoriestoshapeandinformthemoraldirectionofthislife.Thereasonliesinhisconceptoftraditionandtherelationshipbetweenindividualsandtheirsocialroles.Ashisargumentheredealswiththemescentraltothisparticularbook,Iquoteitatsomelength.Manisinhisactionsandpractice,aswellasinhisfiction,essentiallyastorytellinganimal.Heisnotessentially,butbecomesthroughhistory,atellerofstoriesthataspiretotruth.Butthekeyquestionformenisnotabouttheirownauthorship;Icanonlyanswerthequestion‘WhatamItodo?’ifIcananswerthepriorquestion‘OfwhatstoryorstoriesdoIfindmyselfapart?’Weenterhumansociety,thatis,withoneormoreimputedcharacters—rolesintowhichwehavebeendrafted—andwehavetolearnwhattheyareinordertobeabletounderstandhowothersrespondtousandhowourresponsestothemareapttobeconstrued.Itisthroughhearingstoriesaboutwickedstepmothers,lostchildren,goodbutmisguidedkings,wolvesthatsuckletwinboys,youngestsonswhoreceivenoinheritancebutmustmaketheirownwayintheworldandeldestsonswhowastetheirinheritanceonriotouslivingandgointoexiletolivewiththeswine,thatchildrenlearnormislearnbothwhatachildandwhataparentis,whatthecastofcharactersmaybeinthedramaintowhichtheyhavebeenbornandwhatthewaysoftheworldare.Deprivechildrenofstoriesandyouleavethemanxiousstutterersintheiractionsandintheirwords.Hencethereisnowaytogiveusanunderstandingofanysociety,includingourown,exceptthroughthestockofstorieswhichconstituteitsinitialdramaticresources.(ibid.,p.216)Ourabilitytoauthorthemoralselfisthereforedependentuponourunderstandingofthevirtuesembeddedinthesocialroleswearebornintoandthesearelearnedinpartfromthestorieswhicharepartofourheritage.LikeOakeshott(1962),MacIntyreunderstandsatraditionasalivingargument,notasasetofpreceptstoenforceconformity.Stories,therefore,informourchoicesinlife,theydonotdictatethem.Itisperfectlyconsistentwithhisbookthattheexampleshelistscomefromlegends,parablesandfairytales,fromthosestoriesgenerallygroupedundertheportmanteauterm‘traditional’anditisuponsuchgenresoftalesthatInowwishtoconcentrate.Beforeproceeding,however,Ishallattempttosummarizeandextendtheimplicationsofwhathasbeenarguedsofarandmakesometentativeproposalsofmyown.Moralcognitivedevelopmentaltheory,withitsstressupontheautonomous,rationalsubjectoperatingwithinaframeworkofuniversalvalues,hasbeenseriouslychallengedinthepostmodernerabymoraltheorieswhichplaceaparticularstressuponnarrativewaysofknowing.Fromthisperspective,themoralselfisseenasintricatelywovenintosocialandhistoricalnetworksofrelationships(Gilligan)androles(MacIntyre).Gilliganandherfollowersseetheareasofaffect—care,compassion,emotionalsensitivity—asinextricablyboundtotherationalintellectwithinthedomainofmoralexperienceandtheyviewsuchexperienceasunavoidablyparticularandresistanttogeneralizationaccordingtoabstractmoralprinciples.Theyseethemoraldomainasmulti-faceted;haveasharedinterestin NARRATIVEANDTHEMORALLIFE11thenarrativesoflivedmoralexperiences;seelanguageandcultureasthefundamentalconstituentsandmediatorsofmoralmeaning;andseetheproblemofinterpretationofmoralmeaningasadeepprobleminpost-structuralistandpostmodernistterms.Theyargueforagreateruseofpersonalnarrativesineducationandeducationalresearchtoenablestudentsandresearcherstounderstandbetterhowthemorallifefindsexpression.MacIntyrehasasimilarviewonthesocio-historicalparticularityofthemorallifeandrejectstheKantianquestforuniversalmaxims.WhereasthosemoraltheoristsinfluencedbyGilliganpresenttheirvoicesasadjunctstoorcritiquesofKohlberg’sparadigmatictheory,MacIntyrelocateshistheoriesofnarrativeaspartofanalternative,Aristoteliantraditionwhich,heargues,presentsacoherentphilosophyforlivingthemorallifeaccordingtovirtues,notmaxims,whichareonlyexpressiblefromwithinsocialroles.Thesevirtues,—courage,honesty,integrity,loyalty,practicalwisdomandkindness,tonamesomeofthemoreobvious—conformlargelytowhatBernardWilliams(1985)describesasthickconcepts,specificethicalnotionswhichconstituteasystemofethicsasopposedtoamoralitysystem.Thisisanimportantdistinctionandonewhich,atthispoint,needstobepursued.Williamsdescribesmoralityasapeculiarlymodernversionofethicalthought.5Thethicker,ethicalconceptsare,heargues,vaguebytheirverynature.Thisisnotaweakness,for:althoughevaluativeandaction-guiding,(they)arealso‘world-guided’inthesensethattheirproperapplication‘isdeterminedbywhattheworldislike.’(Scheffler,1996,p.13)Incontrast,themoralitysystemwhichpervadesmodernthoughtdemandsasharpboundaryforitselfandisdominatedbyrestrictivelyabstractand‘thin’conceptswhichseektorepresentallethicalconclusionsasstatementsofobligation.Williamsarguesthat,unlikejudgmentswithinthemoralitysystem,thosewhichusethickconceptsamounttoabodyofknowledgeastheyembracebothfactandvalueandarebaseduponnotionsoftheworldasitactuallyis.He,too,isdrawntonarrative,toHomer,SophoclesandThucydides,astheyrepresent:humanbeingsasdealingsensibly,foolishly,sometimescatastrophically,sometimesnobly,withaworldthatisonlypartiallyintelligibletohumanagencyandinitselfisnotnecessarilywelladjustedtoethicalaspirations.(citedinScheffler,op.cit.,p.13)Toadvocatethecentralityofnarrativeinthemoraleducationofyoungschoolchildrenis,therefore,toproposethatweconcentrateonthebroader,‘thicker’fieldofethicsratherthanthenarrower,‘thinner’fieldofthemoralitysystem.Suchadvocacydoesnotimplyanabandonmentofinstitutionalrulesandpracticesintendedtodevelopasenseofcommunity,responsibilityandautonomy.WhatIamproposingisthatsuchpracticesarecompatiblewithaviewofmoraleducationakintoasystemofethics,asadvocatedbyWilliams,MacIntyreandGilligan;andthatstorieshaveaparticularlyimportantroleinenablingchildrentoexplorethenatureoftheethicallifeas 12DRAMA,NARRATIVEANDMORALEDUCATIONitisexperienced.OneofthemajorproblemswiththemoralitysystematthecentreoftheKohlberg/Kantianapproach,seekingasitdoestobindtogetherduty,practicalnecessityandlogicalconsistency,isthatitpresentsmoralityasthoughitwerearationalpuzzle,aseriesofdilemmaswepresideoverasimpartialjudges.Itthereforefailstocapturethefeelofthemoralimpulse,withitsattendanturgencyandcommitmentbutalsotheconfusionandmessinessofitall.TheAristotelianview,summarizedherebyNussbaum,issensitivetothis:whatwefindinpracticeisnotasharpcontrastbetweenabsoluteclaimsandclaimsthatcanbeavoidedwitheasebutamessiercontinuumofclaimsjudgedtohavevariousdegreesofforceandinevitability.(1986,p.30)Kohlberg,althoughacceptingthesharprealityofmoraldilemmas,neverthelessproposesthatthiscontinuumofclaimscanberationallyresolvedintoahierarchy.Bycontrast,theethicalsystem,Iwouldsuggest,presentsamodelwhichwillmakesensetobothteachersandchildren,recognizingasitdoestheexistenceofconflictingmoralfeelingswithoutsuggestingthatthisconflictissolelyduetoourownpoorreasoningpowers.Nordoesitproposethatallclaimsarerelativeandthereforebeyondjudgmentandevaluation.IntrinsictotheargumentofMacIntyreandtofeministmoraltheoristssuchasGilliganandNoddingsisthelocationofmoralitywithinthesocialworld;thefactthatthesocialworldwillprovidedifferentrolesandrelationshipsforeachofustofulfil;andthattheserolesandrelationshipswillbringdifferentmoralpressurestobearonus,noneofwhichmaybeanythelessbindingthananother.Henceethicaljudgmentisparticular,problematicanddependentuponcontext;formanyofGilligan’sfollowers,irremediablyso.Aristotle,however,insiststhatgeneralizationsarepossible,butthattheymustbeinformedbyobservationsandexperiencesoftheparticular.Amedicalanalogymaybehelpful.Eachcaseofcanceradoctormayneedtotreatisspecific,differentbutisofnecessityinformedbyothersimilarcases.Theunderstandingthedoctorgainsfromthemisdependentuponanappreciationofbothdifferenceandsimilarity.Butwhatisimportantisthattheparticularisnotsynonomouswiththeunique.Thusstories—or,inamedicalcontext,casestudies—informthedoctorhowtoact.Andso,too,withthemorallife.ItmaybedifficulttoargueforuniversallawsasKohlbergunderstoodthem,butthatdoesnotimplythatwemustavoidmakingmoralgeneralizations.Storiesinformourcapacitytomakesuchgeneralizations.Aristotle’sconceptofthevirtuespresentsuswithamoralvocabularywhichisatoncepreciseandproblematic,opentodevelopmentandtodebate.Forexample,wemayallagreethatcourageisavirtue;butwhatcharacterizesitandhowitwillbeexpressedindifferentcircumstancesandcontextswillvaryaccordingtoindividualperceptionsshapedbypersonal,culturalandhistoricalexperience.Henceitsthicknessasaconcept,itsabilitytoembracefactandvalue,andtheroleofstoriesinhelpingustoexplorethedepthandcomplexityofthisthickness.Whetherwedescribeourpresent-day,Britishsocietyaspost-structuralist,postmodernorjustcontemporary,thereislittledoubtthatthedominantideasoftheoldgrandnarratives—religious,political,ideological—areunder NARRATIVEANDTHEMORALLIFE13questionaswewitnessanincreasinglypluralisticproliferationofcultureandbelief.AsFredInglisargues:Theindividualizingofvalueswhichistheinevitableproductofaglobalculturemadeupofdozensofmapsoflocalknowledgemeansthatnoneoftheoldstructuresofmoralityandtheeducationtheyfatheredcanhold….Inthesecircumstances,amoraleducationcomposedofrelativelysecurepreceptsandmaximswillnotserve.Eachindividualmustactmorallybutwithoutmaxims.(1993,p.212)Insuchaworld,heseesstoriesastheonlyresourcewehavelefttoprovideuswithmoralguidance.Theguide(the)individualneedsisthecanonoftheworld’sstories.Theroutefromimpersonalmoralitytopersonallifeismarkedbythenarrative….Thestorieswetellourselvesaboutourselvesarenotjustahelptomoraleducation;theycomprisetheonlyeducationwhichcangainpurchaseonthemodernworld.(ibid.,pp.213–214)Inglis’assertionmovesusintothespecificareasofbiographyandliteratureandthusraisesfurtherquestionsastowhatkindofmorallearningliteratureoffersusandwhetherthisappliestothecanonoftheworld’sfairystories;for,notwithstandingtheendorsementofMacIntyre,toarguethespecificcaseforusingfairystoriesinthemoraleducationofyoungchildrenmusttakeintoaccounttheirnatureasfictionalnarrativesandwhetherthisiscompatiblewiththemoralpotentialofnarrativeasdefinedwithinthehumansciences.Notes1ForafullandreadableaccountofthephilosophicalandeducationalprinciplesunderpinningKohlberg’sideas,withselectivedetailsfromhisresearchfindings,seeKohlberg,L.(1971).2Intheappendicestotheabovearticle,Kohlbergprovidesdefinitionsofthemoralstageswithexamplesofthetypeofreasoningwhichillustratestheirattainment,togetherwithalistofwhathedefinesastheuniversalaspectsofmorality.Seeop.cit.,pp.86–92.3Asanilluminatingexample,IquotefromErikson,(1977,p.239),wherehedescribeshow,inStage6,thehealthyindividualachievesthestageofIntimacy.OneofthegoalsofthisstageistheUtopiaofgenitality.This,Eriksonexplains,shouldinclude:1.mutualityoforgasm2.withalovedpartner3.oftheothersex4.withwhomoneisableandwillingtoshareamutualtrust5.andwithwhomoneisableandwillingtoregulatethecyclesofa.work 14DRAMA,NARRATIVEANDMORALEDUCATIONb.procreationc.recreation6.soastosecuretheoffspring,too,allthestagesofasatisfactorydevelopment.HomosexualsmaywellhavecriticizedsuchaperspectivewhenEriksonwroteChildhoodandSociety,buttheircriticismswouldbeseenasfarmoremainstreamthanmarginaltoday.4TherehasbeenagreatdealwrittenaboutGilligan’stheoriesinrecentyearsandGilliganherselfhasrevisedanddevelopedthem.SeeHekman,S.(1995)foracomprehensiveoverviewofthisdevelopment.5SeeWilliams(1985)pp.6–7forhisdiscussionofthedifferencebetweenanethicalsystemandamoralitysystem.SeealsoScheffler(1996)foranexcellentsummaryofthisandofWilliams’ideasonthenatureof‘thick’concepts. Chapter2MoralMeaningsinLiteraryNarrativesandinMythsandFairyTalesTherecentdepthofinterestinnarrativeshownbythehumansciencesseesinitanaturalformforthehumanmindtoapprehendrealityaslivedexperience,regardingit,aswehaveseen,as‘aprimaryactofmind’.PaulRicoeurhasshownushowtheprincipalpropertyofanarrativeisitssequentiality,itsmeaningbeingconstructedfromtheoverallconfigurationofasequenceofevents,whethertheseeventsberealorimaginary(Bruner,1990,pp.43–44).Moreover,Whitehasargued(1981)thattocreateanarrativeisinherentlytomakeapleaformorallegitimacy.AsBrunerputsit:‘Totellastoryisinescapablytotakeamoralstance,evenifitisamoralstanceagainstmoralstances’(1990,p.51).Bothrealandimaginarynarrativessharethesequalitiesand,accordingtoBruner,goodstories,whetherrealorimaginary,shareadditionalintrinsicqualities;theysubjunctivizeexperience,invitingthereadertoreconstructwhatmighthavehappened,openingupratherthanclosingdownpossibilities:Tomakeastorygood,itwouldseem,youmustmakeitsomewhatuncertain,somehowopentovariantreadings,rathersubjecttothevagariesofintentionalstates,undetermined.(ibid.,p.54)ThissubjunctivityconstituteswhattheRussianformalistscalled‘literariness’,theliterarinessofprintedstories,farmore‘artfully’shapedthantherecountedexperiencesororalanecdoteswhichareequallynarrativeintheirform.Ifallstoriesmustholdamoralstance,theninagood,oreffective,literarynarrative,itmustbeinsuchawaysoasnottoreducethestory’ssubjunctivity.SamGoldberghasexploredthetypeofmoralunderstandingtobegainedfromliteratureandhisargumentiscompatiblewithBruner’semphasisonxsubjunctivity.‘Literature’,hewrites,‘doesitsmoralthinkingintheparticularsitimagines;andithasto’(1993,p.xv).Thisisbecause,whereasphilosophyandpsychologyconcentrateonconduct-morality,viewingpeopleasmoralagentsandfocusingontheirvoluntary,intentionalactions,narrativeliteraturefusesthisvisionwithamoreelusivelife-centredviewofmorality.Conductmorality,heargues,dealswithissuesofhowtolive,whilelifemoralityisconcernedwithhowtolive.Iftheformercentresaroundmattersofrightandwronginhumanactions,ofhowthevirtuesandvicesconstitutemoralcharacter,thenthelattercharacterizesandevaluatesmodesofliving.Itdealswith: 16DRAMA,NARRATIVEANDMORALEDUCATIONthevalueofmanifoldcapacities,potentialities,wantsandneedsofhumanbeings;aboutwhatis‘truly’human,orwhatthe‘perfection’or‘well-being’ofalifeconsistsin,orwhatarethefinestandfullestmodesofhumanvitality.(ibid,p.36)WhathemeansbythisisbestillustratedbyhisassessmentofJaneAusten’sachievementinMansfieldPark:Mattersofsensibility,feeling,attraction,graceandease,hopingandfearing,anddesiring,evensomesenseoffatedness,becomeinter-twinedineachcharacterwithmattersofjudgment,choice,principleanddeliberateintentionalaction;andresponsibilityisfound(bythosecapableofcaringaboutitandfindingit)toapplytothewholeofwhatoneis,tohowandwhatoneseesthingstobe,tothelifeinoneasonelivesitout.(ibid.,p.285)Goldberg’semphasisonnarrativeas‘irreduciblyparticularandindividual’(ibid.,p.282)isconterminouswithhisviewofthemorallifeasitisactuallylived.ItisalsoverymuchinthesamemodeofthinkingasGilliganandMacIntyre,stressingtheneedtounderstandthemorallifeintheparticularhistorical,socialandculturalconditionswhichrenderitsactionsunitaryratherthanmerelysequential:itissuchandsuchalifelivedwithintheseandthoseparticularsocialinstitutions,practices,beliefsandattitudes,forexample,andwithintheseorthosepersonal,sexualandfamilialrelationships.(ibid.,p.43)Hearguesthattoapproachaliterarynarrativeassomethingembodyingpreconceivedideas,thoughtoutintheabstractandthenillustratedwithinatext,iserroneousbecauseof:‘theinabilityofthatkindofthinkingbyitselftomakemoralsenseofpeople’(ibid.,p.xvii).Inotherwords,asthisisnothowpeoplethinkandactmorally,itisnothowstoriesshouldbemorallyconstructedorinterpreted.Atheorywhichdoesmuchtoexplainthenovel’spotentialformoralsubjunctivitywasdevelopedbyMikhailBakhtininhisreassessmentoftheworkofDostoevsky(seeKelly,1992).Bakhtinarguedthattheearlynineteenthcenturynovelwasmonologicalinitsstructure,withtheomniscientauthorregulatingtheinterpretationofcharactersonbehalfofthereader.Dostoevsky’snovels,ontheotherhand,arecharacterizedbypolyphony,wherenosinglevoicewithinanarrativeisthebearerofadefinitivetruth.Theperspectiveoftheomniscientauthorismuddied,thecentralcharactersaregivenaspecialkindofautonomythroughwhathedescribedasadialogicpenetrationoftheirpersonalities.Bakhtin’sconceptofdialogism,asAileenKellyexplains,amountstoareinterpretationofthenatureoftheself:Heheldselfhoodtobeintrinsically‘dialogical’:theselfcannotbeunderstoodorexpressedexceptinrelationtoanaudiencewhoserealorimaginedresponsescontinuallyshapethewayinwhichwedefineourselves.(Kelly,1992,p.44) MORALMEANINGSINLITERARYNARRATIVES,MYTHSANDFAIRYTALES17Thedialogicalnatureoftheselfcontextualizesitinspecificsocialandhistoricalcircumstancesandanyattempttomonologizeit,throughsuchauthoritariandiscoursesaswefindinreligious,politicalormoraldogma,areultimatelyfalseattemptstofinalizeit,toresolveitsstrugglebetweencompetingvalues.HenceBakhtin’sbeliefthatitisthroughbecomingincreasinglyresponsivetotheparticularitiesofindividualcasesthatwebecomemoremoral,notthroughouradoptionofasetofpre-ordainedmoralmaxims;andhencetherealpotentialofthenovelasasourceofmoraleducation.Whathetermedthe‘prosaicwisdom’ofthenovelwas:itsabilitytoconveythefundamental‘messiness’oftheworld,thefluxofeventsthatcannotbereducedtoanysetofexplanatoryprinciples.(Kelly,op.cit.,p.46)Insuchanovel,noviewisincontestableand,asintherealworld,people’smoralstatureisexpressedthroughtheirabilitytorespondmeaningfullytotheambivalenceofordinaryexistence.Notsurprisingly,Bakhtin’sideashavegainedininfluencewiththeadvanceofpostmodernistdiscourseandtheyre-emphasizetheculturalandhistoricalspecificitywhichothernarrativetheoriesofmoralunderstandingholdasacentraltenet.Thenovelconvincesbyproblematizingmorality,bycounteringanyattempttorenderitstraightforwardandfacile.ThetheoryofdialogismfitswellwithIrisMurdoch’sperspectiveonthemoralfunctionofliterature,whichsheseesasproviding‘arenewedsenseofthedifficultyandcomplexityofthemorallifeandtheopacityofpersons’(1970,p.49).Thepotentialformorallearninginherenttoliterarynarrativescanbeunderstood,therefore,torestintheirambiguityandindeterminacyontheonehandandintheircontextualparticularityontheother.However,suchaviewpresentsuswithaproblemwhenweturntotraditionaltalesforitisimmediatelyevidentthattheyby-passbothsubjunctivityandhistoricalspecificity.Theyarepopulatedbyarangeofinstantlyidentifiable,stockcharacters,suchaswolvesandwitches,princessesandkings,heroesandfools,andarenoticeablydevoidofthedialogicalopen-endednesscharacteristicofthegreatliterarynovels,asadelightfulshortstoryfromSaki(1986)willremindus.InTheStoryTeller,abeleagueredauntonatrainjourneyattemptstoquietenherunrulychargesbytellingthemastoryinwhichavirtuousgirlissavedfromanenragedbullbyneighbours,whoruntoheraidbecausetheyadmirehergoodnesssomuch.Thetaleisnotasuccess;thechildrenlistentoitreluctantlyandcriticizeitunsparinglywhentheaunthasfinished.AmansharingthecompartmentthenrelatesthetaleofagirlcalledBerthawhowas‘horriblygood’,sogoodthatshewasawardedmedalsforhergoodnessandinvitedtowalkintheking’sgardenasaspecialreward.Whilethere,however,sheencounteredaviciouswolf.Runningtothesafetyofsomenearbybushesshehidandalmostescaped;buthertremblingcausedhermedalstoclinkoneagainsttheother,betrayingherpresencetothewolfwhopromptlyateher.Theauntisoutraged,condemningthestoryas‘improper’;thechildren,ontheotherhand,loveit.‘ThatisthemostbeautifulstoryIhaveeverheard!’proclaimstheeldestdaughter,wistfully.Thetaleiswitty,cynicalandveryentertaining,debunkingasitdoesthetendencyinsomeVictorianfairytalesforfacile 18DRAMA,NARRATIVEANDMORALEDUCATIONmoralizing,apiousrepresentationofconventionalvirtuesandasentimentalviewofchildhood.Thechildren’spreferenceforanimproperstoryispresentedasaliberatingtonictotheoppressiveandtediousdidacticismoftheaunt’staleandhelpsexplainthepopularityofRoaldDahl’sstoriesamongchildrentoday.Saki’spointisthatstoriesdonoteducatewhentheyareusedasvehiclesforpreachingconventionalmorality;instead,theyboretheirlistenersandfailtoconvince.Saki’sparody,then,wouldappeartocontesttheenthusiasticendorsementofMacIntyrefortraditionaltales,underlininginsteadtheirshortcomingsassourcesofmorallearning.However,ifwearetoappreciatemorefullythemoraldiscourseofthefairytale,wemustfirstlocateitnotasapoorcousinoftheliterarynovelbutasadistinctgenreinatraditionthatincludesmythicandfolktales.Unlikethenovel,whichisaproductofeducated,literate,westernsocietyandcanbeanalysedassuch,theliteraryfairytalehasrootswhichlieinoral,pre-literateculturesanditscultural,historicalandpoliticallinkswithmythandfolktalearecomplexanddisputed,mirroringcontradictoryclaimsfortheethicalpotentialofthetalesinbothhistoricalandcontemporarycontexts.Significantly,theseclaimsfallintotwocampsandreflecttheuniversality/particularitydichotomywhichcharacterizesthecontemporarydebateinmoraleducationaltheory.Fortherearethosewhoseethetalesasbearersofspiritualwisdomanduniversal,eternaltruths,embodiedwithintheirarchetypesandsymbolisms;andthosewhoexaminetheirhistoricalandculturalroots,seeingtheirmoralmeaningsastransient,politicalandopentochange.Althoughtheemphasisinthisstudyisonfairytales,itisnecessarytolocatethemwithinthistraditionbyfirstlookingattheirmoreancientrelatives,mythsandfolk-tales.FolkTalesandMythThereisnoagreementamongscholarsonhowtodifferentiatethegenreofmythfromthatoffolktale,andthetermmyth,inparticular,hasconnotationssobroad,dependinguponthecontextofitsuse,thatawholethesiscouldconcentrateontheseconnotationsalone.Forthepurposesofthisbriefrésumé,Iproposeabalddefinitionofmythasafantastic,highlysymbolicstory,anintricatepartofaculture’sbeliefsystem,expoundingvaluessignificanttothatculture,withcentralcharacterswhoareheroicorGod-like.Likemyths,folk-talesareancientandcontainsimilarpatternsoffantasy,symbolandmagic,formingpartofanoral,folktraditionbutwithcentralprotagonistswhooriginatefromhumblebackgrounds.Thompson(1977)arguesthatthereissomevalidityforseeingadistinctionbetweenthetwogenresinthecaseoftheGreekandHindutalesbutnonewhatsoverwithregardtothetalesoftheNorthAmericanIndians.Propp(1984,p.ixx)sawthefolk-taleasa‘desacralizedmyth’;andBenjamin(1992)sawthemasanoppressive,socializingagencyinprimitivesocieties,performingthesamepoliticalfunctionasreligionincontemporarysociety.Kirk(1970,pp.36–41),likeBenjamin,attemptstodifferentiatemythandfolk-talelargelyintermsofcontentandbothdetectadistinctlylightertoneinthefolk-tale.Myths,Kirkargues,haveseriousunderlyingpurposes,whereasfolk-tales,althoughtheymightreflectuponrecurrentsocialdilemmas,suchashowtocircumventamaliciousstepmotherorajealoussibling,areneverprofoundintheirintentions.Heperceivesthepersistenceofmagicinsuchtalesas‘justaspecial MORALMEANINGSINLITERARYNARRATIVES,MYTHSANDFAIRYTALES19typeofingenuity’(p.38)whosepurposeisprimarilyafunctionalone,toprovide‘afeelingofsatisfactionattheneatnessandfinalitywithwhichanawkwardsituationisresolvedoranenemyconfounded’(p.38).Heacknowledges,however,howbothmagicandtrickeryservetoexemplifyanothermajorfeatureofEuropeanfolk-tales,thatofwish-fulfilmentfantasy,wheregreatmaterialrewardsaregainedbysmallbutoftenhighlymoralactions.‘Moralityisonequalityleftopentotheunder-privileged’(p.39)hequips.Thefactthatrewardsformoralactionscentreonwealthandrichesis,heargues,duetothematerialpovertyofthetellersandlistenersinthefolktradition;asthearistocraticmythsreflectasocietyandanaudiencewithnolackofwealth,wish-fulfilmentdoesnottakeonsuchamaterialisticforminmanysuchtales.Thereissomeagreement,therefore,thatEurasianfolk-talesareoptimisticintheircontentandpointtothepossibilityofmaterialhappinessachievedthroughamixtureofgoodfortuneandmoralmerit.Whethersuchrewards,orthenatureofthemoralitytheyportray,canbejudgedasmoralbyconventionalcontemporarystandardsis,ofcourse,anothermatter.TalesoftheNativeNorthAmericanaredifferentand,asThompsonpointsout,theirmythicalandfolktraditionsmergeintoeachother.AstheirculturesembodysuchanattachmenttoandappreciationoftheEarth,itsbeautyandresources,theirstoriesexpressthesevaluesandhaveattractedtheattentionofeducatorsinrecentyears,particularlythoseconcernedwithenvironmentalissuesintheUSA.MusserandFreeman(1989)seethestoriesofthePlainsIndiansinpreciselythesetermsandCadutoandBruchac(1988)havedevelopedanenvironmentalteachingprogrammecentredaroundacollectionofthesestories.ReferringtoGilligan’sethicofcare,theyseethetalesasmaterialforteaching:‘asenseofbeingapartofthelivesofotherpeopleandtheEarth,andofwholismandinterdependence’(1988b,p.7).OneofthegreatscholarsofreligionandmythwasMirceaEliade(1963).Hebelievedthatmythsrelatedasacredhistorysetinprimordialtime,narratingthedeedsofsupernaturalbeingsinwayswhichsetexamplesforhumanstocodifyandordertheirlives.Myths,heargues,providereligiousexperiencesbybeingenactedandhenceincorporatedintothepresent,whichenactmentenableshumanstobetransportedintosacredtime.Campbell(1949)embracesallthemythologiesoftheworldinagrand,universaltheoryandseesnorealdistinctionbetweenthefunctionofmythologyorfolk-taleand,likeEliade,heseesthisfunctionasadeeplyspiritualone.DrawingfreelyonthetheoriesofFreudandJung,heproposesaninterpretationofmythicalstoriesasspirituallytherapeuticandhealth-giving.Thehumansubconscioushedefinesas‘thebasic,magicringofmyth’(p.3)andthefunctionofmythicalsymbolismis‘tocarrythehumanspiritforward’(p.11).Thecentral,universalsymbolofmythisthefigureoftheheroandCampbellproposesatypologyforthepatternofhisheroicquestwhichisalsouniversalinitsapplication.Everycultureineveryageneedsitsownheroesbuttheuniversalnatureoftheirindividualquestshasbeencapturedsymbolicallyinmyth,eachofwhichisa‘localcarrierofuniversalthemes’(p.231).Inmyth,theproblemsandsolutionsshownarevalidforallmankind.(p.19)Theheroesofalltimehavegonebeforeus;thelabyrinthisthoroughlyknown;wehaveonlytofollowthethreadofthehero-path.(p.25) 20DRAMA,NARRATIVEANDMORALEDUCATIONThehero’sjourneyisamodelforusalltofollow,ifwehavethecouragetoundertakeit.Itsrewardisagiftofenlightenment,tobesharedwithasociety,an‘ego-shattering,life-redeemingelixir’(p.216)butonewhichwilloftenmeetwiththeharshrejectionbygoodpeopleatalosstocomprehenditssignificance.Campbell’sperspectiveisopenlyreligiousandhisemphasisonsymbolisequalledbyhisemphasisonmystery,revelationandsalvation.Campbell,likeLevi-Strauss,attemptsauniversaltheoryofmythbutKirkstronglycontestssuchtheories,believingthat;‘mythsdifferenormouslyintheirmorphologyandsocialfunction’(1970,p.7).Heexaminesindetailnotonlytheoriesofmythologicalfunctionandmeaning—includingtheideasofLevi-Strauss,JungandFreud—buthealsodrawsevidenceforhisconclusionsfromasystematicstudyofmythologiesfromadiversityofculturalsources.Somemyths,hesuggests,originatedfromritualandceremonialuse,othersconfirmedthememoryofandprovidedauthorityfortribalcustoms;stillothershadaspeculativeorexplanatorypurpose,offeringsymbolicsolutionstoproblemsorassertingvisionsofaTruththroughevocativeimagery(pp.252–259).HeoffersaverydifferentformoftypologyfromCampbellandonewhichholdsoutnoprivilegedpositionformythasabearerofpsychologicaloruniversaltruth,moralorotherwise.Instead,throughanalysisandexample,heproposesthatanymoralvaluespropoundedinmythswerelocalinperspectiveandform.So,forexample,thepervasivepresenceoftheGodsinGreekmythology:‘providedacontinuingcommentaryonhumanaspirationsandlimitationsandtheabsurdconflictsbetweenthem’(p.193).Hindumyth,ontheotherhand,tendstoteachexplicitlessonsfromitsownbeliefsystem:thatworldlyaffairsareunimportantinrelationtothewholeoftime,thatmenwillbereborn,thatrealityisequivocal,thatthegodsaresuperior,thatsexandfertilityaregood,butthatdestructionisalsonecessary.(p.213)UnlikeCampbell(andFreudandJung),whoseethecomplex,dream-likesymbolismofmythascentraltoitssignificance,Kirkseesitsnarrativestorytellingastheprimarypointoffocus.Heholdsanevolutionaryviewofmythwhichlaysstresson:thegradualdevelopmentofnarrativestructures,ofstories,withcomplexsymbolicimplicationscominginalmostincidentally.(p.280)WhereasCampbellseesmythologyprimarilyinsymbolicandpsychologicalterms,Kirkscrutinizesitfromaperspectivewhichconcentratesonculturalandhistoricalmeaning,acontrastinapproachandemphasismirroredbydifferenttheoristsinthefieldofthefairystory.FairyStoriesThetermfairytaleisnebulousandoftenusedtoembracemythandfolktale:and,whereasMacIntyreequatesalltraditionaltalesasimportanttoachild’smoraleducation,Benjaminwouldapparantlydisputesuchanassertion,evokingthefairytaleanditsspecialkindof MORALMEANINGSINLITERARYNARRATIVES,MYTHSANDFAIRYTALES21‘liberatingmagic’asthedirectopponentoftheoppressiveteachingsofmyth(1992,p.101).Moreover,thecontextualreferencingofBenjamin,infact,showsthatheclearlyhadinmindfolktalesaswellasfairytalesandthedifferencesbetweenthetwogenresaresignificant.JackZipes,amongothers,hasdocumentedhowthefairytaleis,infact,aliteraryphenomenon,emergingintheseventeenthcentury,whenwritersbegantouseoralfolktalesassourcematerialforstories,transformingtheirmeaningsandtheirfunctionsintheprocessofwritingthemdown.Furthermore,neithertheoriginalwesternfairystories,northefolktalesfromwhichtheywerederived,wereintendedexclusivelyforanaudienceofchildren.WhenwriterssuchasCharlesPerraultandtheBrothersGrimmbegantocollectoralfolktalesandpublishthemincollections,itbecameevidentthatanewreadingpublic,thatofliteratechildrenandtheirparents,enjoyedsuchtalesandthusbeganadebatewhichhascontinuedtothisdayontheirmoralsuitability.AlisonLuriehascommentedonhowthisconcernhascontinuedtobetheprerogativeof‘highminded,progressivepeople’forovertwohundredyears.Shepointstohowintheeighteenthcentury,forexample,atalesuchasCinderellawascondemnedforpainting‘someoftheworstpassionsthatcanenterahumanbreast…suchasenvy,jealousy…vanity,aloveofdressetc.’(1990,p.17).Amorerecentattackonthetalefindsdifferentvaluestocriticize:Whyisthestepmothershowntobewickedandnotthefather?WhyisCinderellaessentiallypassive?…Whydogirlshavetoquarreloveraman?…Areallmenhandsome?Ismarriagetheendgoaloflife?Isitimportanttomarryrichmen?(Zipes,1979,p.173)However,asmuchasthefairytalehashaditsdetractorsonmoralgrounds,ithashaditsmoralapologists.G.K.Chestertonsawthemas‘spiritualexplorations’(citedinBettelheim,1976,p.24)andEliadeasexpressionsofpsycho-dramas‘thatansweradeepneedinthehumanbeing’(ibid.,p.35).Thereare,infact,twocampswhichIshalltermtherevisionistsandthetraditionalists.Byexploringtheirtheoriesandbylookingathowtheyhaveinfluencedwritersandeducators,wecanbegintomapoutthemoralmazewhichthefieldofthefairytalehasbecome.TheRevisionistCaseByrevisionists,Irefertothosewritersandcriticswhoaresuspiciousofthemoralvalueswithinthenarrativeoffairytalesandthereforeproposethatthestoriesneedtoberevised,orsanitizedforanaudienceofchildren.Suchviewsareparticularlyprevalenttodayand,asLurieindicates,theirmoralobjectionsmayhavechangedtheirnatureovertheyearsbuttheyformpartofalongtradition;paradoxically,perhaps,itistheworkofearlierrevisioniststhattoday’srevisionistsoftenobjectto.JackZipesisoneofthemajorcontemporarytheoristswhoopenlyadvocatestheneedtorevisefairytales.Inanumberofbooks,hetracestheirrootsbacktothepeasantoralfolktradition,wheretheirrole,hesuggests,wasasubversiveone.Aspartofthepeasants’ 22DRAMA,NARRATIVEANDMORALEDUCATIONcommunalproperty,theyembodiedthepeople’sneedsandwishes,bridgingagapintheirunderstandingofsocialproblems,projectingapossiblefulfilmentofutopianlongingswithinthefantasticimageryofafamiliarnarrativemode.However,whenthetalesbegantobewrittendown,theirpreviousmalleabilitybecamefixed.Whereastheyhadformerlybeenadaptedbytellerstotheneedsanddesiresofspecificcommunities,writersofthetales,inobliteratingtheoriginalfolkperspective,endowedthecontentsofthetaleswithanewideology.Toillustratewhathemeansbythis,itisworthreferringtohiscommentsonthehistoryoftheRedRidingHoodstory.ThiswasfirstturnedintoaliterarytalebyPerrault,whoendoweditwith‘anearnestmoralpurpose’(1993,p.27).SuchamoralpurposeneedstobeviewednotonlyintermsofPerrault’sownpersonalpreferencesbutasshapedbyFrenchsocialhistoryandthearistocratictasteofthetime.Stringentcodesofclassandbehaviourwerebeingdevelopedintowhichchildrenneededtofit.Consequently,theforthright,braveandshrewdheroineoftheoriginalfolknarrativewaschangedintoapretty,passive,innocentlygulliblelittlegirl.Perrault’stalebecameawarningtoalllittlegirlstobewareofstrangers,toobeytheirparentsand,withinitsimagery,itsuggeststhatiftheywereeverseducedandraped,itwouldbethroughtheirownnegligenceandcompliance.Havingcreatedsuchapowerfullysymbolictale,thenumerousversionswhichsucceededitthroughoutthenineteenthcenturybuiltuponitspotentialtosocializelittlegirlsinaparticulardirection.ThispotentialissuccinctlysummarizedbyTatar:Foucaulthastaughtustheextenttowhichsocializationproduces‘docilebodies’thatsubjectthemselvestoself-disciplineandproductivelabors(sic).Byinternalizingadisciplinaryregimeineachsubject,socializationstavesofftheneedforcoerciveactionorrepressivemeasures.(1992,p.235)WhatZipesobjectstoispreciselythetale’sabilitytointrojectamoralcodesosuccessfully;forthismoralcodeheseesasideologicallyoppressive.Hedrawsonthewritingsofnumerousfeminists,whohaveaparticularinterestinthefairytaleduetothetypeoffemaleimagesittendstoperpetuateandsummarizestheirobjectionsthus:Notonlyarethetalesconsideredtobetoosexist,racistandauthoritarian,butthegeneralcontentsaresaidtoreflecttheconcernsofsemi-feudal,patriarchalsocieties.(1983,p.170)Zipespointswithapprovaltotheworkofrecentwriterswhodeliberatelysetouttochallengeandreversesomeoftheexpectationsinthegenre,thusrestoringtoitits‘emancipatory’and‘liberating’potential(1983,p.191).InthetalePrinceAmilec,forexample(Zipes,1986),thearchetypalmalefiguresofthekingandtheprinceareportrayedasunintelligentandincompetent,thebeautifulprincessasbad-temperedandultimatelyundesirableandthewitchaspro-active,generousandsexuallyattractiveenoughtowintheprince’shand.Inheranalysisofthehistoricalevolutionoffairytales,MariaTatarpointstonegativefemalerolemodelsandtoaproliferationofimagesofcrueltyandviolence,particularlytowardwomen,typifyinganoutmodedpedagogyoffear.Theviolentimagesfairytales MORALMEANINGSINLITERARYNARRATIVES,MYTHSANDFAIRYTALES23useweretakenfromafolk-taletraditionwheretheywereaninstrumentforanarchichumour,beforelaterwritersattemptedtopervertthemintotheserviceofbehaviouralsocialization.InthespiritofFoucault,shemakesthepointthat:theentireprojectofchildrearing,includingthetellingoftales,isinvestedinamicro-physicsofpowerandisthereforeneverreallyinthebestinterestofthechild.Anyattempttopassonstoriesbecomesadisciplinarytacticaimedatthechild.(1992,p.236)Suchablanketstatementwouldappeartoleaveno-one,noteventhemostradicalrevisionist,withanyroomformanoeuvreexcept,perhaps,toshutupandleavethechildbe.However,shedeclaresherselfinfavourof:‘breakingthemagicspellthattraditionaltalesweavearoundtheirlisteners’(ibid.,p.237).Despitethestabilizingpowerofprint,fairytalescanstillbetoldandretoldsothattheychallengeandresist,ratherthansimplyreproduce,theconstructsofaculture.Throughplayfuldisruptions,itispossibletobegintransformingcanonicaltextsintotalesthatempowerandentertainchildrenatthesametimethattheyinterrogateandtakethemeasureoftheirownparticipationinaprojecttosocializethechild.(ibid.,p.236)ThetaleofPrinceAmilecwouldevidentlyfallintothiscategory,aswouldpublicationsbySciezskaandJohnson(1991)who,inTheFrogPrince(continued),forexample,usesparody,ironichumourandshocktosubvertthetraditionaltale.Tatar’shistoricalanalysisisthoroughandshequotesinstancesofnineteenthcenturywriters,revisioniststhemselves,suchasGeorgeCruikshank,whohadfeltcompelledtorewritePuss-in-Bootsfor,asitstood,thetalewasacleverlessoninlying!Whatshedoesnotnote,however,isthattheresultofsuchalayeringofmoraldiscourseisboundtobeunsatisfactory:deceitandtrickeryhavetoremainintrinsictothetalebecauseoftheirstrongandpersistentnarrativefunction,apointrecognizedbybothKirk(1970,p.38)andBruner(1986,p.20).Consequently,andparadoxically,suchtamperingoftensucceedsinenhancingtheambivalentmoralityofthetaleratherthandiminishingit.BothTatarandZipes,therefore,aredistinctlypost-structuralistintheirperspectives.Theyattacktheoppressivemoralizingoftheliteraryfairytaleandtheoutmodedvaluestheyembody,advocatingnew,moreradicaltalestorestoretheoriginalroleofthefolktale,onewhosemoralforceliesinitsdrivetowardsocialandculturalliberation.TheTraditionalistCaseThetraditionalistcasearguesthatthecanonofthegreatfairytaleshasacentralplaceinthesocialandmoraleducationofchildrenanditsmostinfluentialexponentofrecenttimeshasbeenBrunoBettelheimwhosebook,TheUsesofEnchantment,hasbeendescribedas‘profoundandilluminating’byMaryWarnock,well-knownforheractiveinterestinmoraleducation. 24DRAMA,NARRATIVEANDMORALEDUCATIONBettelheimarguesthattheimportanceofthesetalesgoesdeeperthanissuesofrolemodelsandmoraldidacticism.Theparamountimportanceoffairytalesforthegrowingindividual,residesinsomethingotherthanteachingsaboutcorrectwaysofbehavingintheworld…Thefairytale’sconcernisnotusefulinformationabouttheexternalworld,buttheinnerprocessestakingplaceintheindividual.(1976,p.25)Theseinnerprocessesaretheworkingsofthepreconsciousandsubconscious,aspropoundedbyFreud.Themostpopularfairytalesare‘purveyorsofdeepinsightsthathavesustainedmankindthroughthelongvicissitudesofitsexistence’(ibid.,p.26).Theyhavecometoaddress,insymbolicform,whathecalls‘theeternalquestions’:Whatistheworldreallylike?HowamItolivemylifeinit?HowcanItrulybemyself?(ibid.,p.45)Forthisreason,theyshouldnotberevisedortamperedwith.Furthermore,withintheparametersofthesebiggerquestions,thesymbolicportrayalofgoodandevilhasafundamentalplace.Contrarytowhattakesplaceinmanymodernchildren’sstories,infairytalesevilisasomnipresentasvirtue.Inpracticallyeveryfairytalegoodandevilaregivenbodyintheformofsomefiguresandtheiractions,asgoodandevilareomnipresentinlifeandthepropensitiesforbotharepresentineveryman.Itisthisdualitywhichposesthemoralproblem,andrequiresthestruggletosolveit.(ibid.,p.9)ThereisnoambivalenceintheclassicfairytalesfavouredbyBettelheim;thegoodwin,thebadlose.Theuseofunambiguouscharactersandthelackofpsychologyareimportantfeaturesofthisprocess.Asthegoodfigureisstraightforwardlyandobviouslytheheroorheroine,thechildwillidentifywithit.Thequestionforthechildisnot‘DoIwanttobegood?’but‘WhodoIwanttobelike?’Thechilddecidesonthebasisofprojectinghimselfwholeheartedlyintoonecharacter.Ifthisfairy-talefigureisaverygoodperson,thenthechilddecidesthathewantstobegood,too.(ibid.,p.10)Muchofthepowerwithinfairytales,heargues,residesinthewaytheyenableachildtoworkthroughanti-socialurgesinsymbolicform.HegivestheexampleofayoungboywhoenjoyedtheexploitsofJacktheGiantKillerbecausehissubconscioussawtheGiantsassymbolicallyrepresentativeofgrown-ups(ibid.,p.27).Ratherthanthisleadingtoadesiretocommitviolence,itpurgedhimofanyfrustrationsandragesthatadults,intheirroleasagentsofsocialcontrol,mighthaveprovokedwithinhim.Thestoryshowedhimthatonedayhe,too,wouldbelikethegiantandacquirethesamepowers.Weshouldnot,therefore,worryabouttheviolenceinthetales;itspurposeisintendedand MORALMEANINGSINLITERARYNARRATIVES,MYTHSANDFAIRYTALES25respondedtoassymbolicratherthanliteral.Whatmattersisthatthefigurewhorepresentstheforceofgoodiseventuallytriumphant.Bettelheim’scaseforthetraditionalfairytaleisbaseduponanorthodoxFreudianperspectiveandhisviewofthemoraldevelopmentofchildrenisverydifferentfromKohlberg’sbutsimilarinitstacitacceptanceofsocialhegemonyandthedominantmoraldiscourse.Behindthequasi-mysticalregardheholdsforfairytales,hismoralperspectiveisconventionalinitsintendedoutcomes,namelythesocializationofthechildintothenecessarygivensofdominant,westernculture.Assuch,thereisanassumptioninhisworkthatthesocialandmoralvalueswithinthetalesarefavourable.Suchanoutlook,onthesurfaceatleast,wouldappeartobeclosertoMacIntyrethantoBenjamin.ForMacIntyre,whatmattersarethesymbolicrolesrepresentedinthetaleswhichpresentchildrenwiththekindofmoralchoicesanddecisionswhichtheycanexpecttofaceastheygrow.Benjamin,too,stressesthetypesfoundinfairytalesbutforverydifferentreasons;eachrevealssymbolicallyhowmancanescapefromtheoppressiveforceofmyth;thefoolshowshowwecanactdumbtowardsit,thewiseacrehowthequestionsmythposesaresimple-minded,andsoon.Byanalogy,heimpliesthatamythisanyregulatorysocio-religioussystemofthoughtusedtoordertheindividualagainsthisbestinterests.InthisheshowshimselftohavemoreincommonwithZipesandTatar,seeingthemoralforceofthefairytaleinessentiallypoliticalterms.ConclusionInthefieldofthehumansciences,then,narrativeisseenastheformbestsuitedtocapturethecontextualparticularitythatcharacterizesmoralactioninthecontemporaryworld.Althoughnarrativeliteratureasisexemplifiedinthecanonofgreatnovelscanbeseentomirrortheparticularityofthemorallife,thenarrativestructuresofmythsandoffairystoriesdonotappeartodoso.Noraretheycharacterizedbythesubjunctivityanddialogicalformwhichhasbeenrecognizedastheotheressentialattributetothemoralforceofthenovel.Instead,thetalesareeitherregardedasmoralnarrativesinuniversal,essentialistterms,quiteinappropriatetocontemporaryculturalperspectives,oraspurveyorsofanoppressivemorality,whichisitselfequallyinappropriate.Theconclusionmightbetoabandonthenarrativeformofthefairystoryaltogether,atleastforthepurposesofmoraleducation,andsuchconclusionsarenotunusualineducationalcircles(seeBairdSaenger,1993).Asafirststeptorefutingthisconclusion,Iwouldsuggestthateither/orthinkingofthistypeisnotouronlyoptionandcanbereplacedbyamoreinclusiveperspectivewhichrejectsthequasi-religiousuniversalismofCampbellandBettelheimwhilstrespectingtheirsensitivitytothepowerofthesymbolismsandnarrativestructuresofthetales;andwhichseekstocombinethisrespectwithacriticalmistrustofdistortedlyinappropriatemoralvaluesthatmayhavebeenlayeredintothem.However,thisdoesnotaddresstheapparentinabilityofthetalestoportraythecomplexityandparticularityofthemorallifeinanappropriate,dialogicalform.Todothis,weneedtoexaminemorefundamentallytherelationshipoffairytalestothetwodistincttraditionsfromwhichitsearlyliteraryformemerged,namelythemythictraditionandtheoraltradition.Asacrucialandintegralpart 26DRAMA,NARRATIVEANDMORALEDUCATIONofthisrelationshipwefindthenarrativeformofdrama,whichhas,fromitsveryorigin,atraditionofengagingwithandquestioningthemoralmeaningsoftalesinthemythictradition.Note1Lucaks(1968)argues,ineffect,thatdialogismischaracteristicofanygreatnovelwhich,inhisphrase,‘containswithinitselftheseedsofitsowncriticism’,p.61. Chapter3Myth,MoralityandDramaInanearlyessay,Brunerexploredthepedagogicalpowerofmythanditssituationincontemporarysociety.Theformofmyth,heargued,isprincipallythatofdrama,afactwhichliesattheheartofitssignificanceasasourceofinstruction.Mythhasadramaticshapebecausethat,too,istheshapeofthepersonality.ToexplainthishereferstoFreud,wholikenedthepersonalitytoacastofcharacters,whichaplaywrighthastheabilitytodecomposeandprojectintothedramatispersonaeofthestage.ThegeniusoftheGreekdramatistslaypreciselyintheirpowertodothis,toentervividlyintothefeelingsoftheopposingpartiesinaconflictandtopresentthemonstageinafashionthatwasatoncebothmythicandrealistic;thatis,throughtherepresentationofpreternaturalforcesandcharacters,theycoulddescribeasocietywhichtheaudiencecouldrecognizeasitsown.ButattheheartoftheinstructivepowerofmythBrunerlocatesthedramaticnatureofthemultipleself,withinwhichourdiscordantimpulsesareboundandstructuredinasetofidentities.Heremythbecomesthetutor,theshaperofidentities;itisherethatpersonalityimitatesmythinasdeepasenseasmythisanexternalizationofthevicissitudesofpersonality.(1960,p.280)ReferringtoCampbell’sconceptofthe‘mythologicallyinstructedcommunity’,hecontinues:themythologicallyinstructedcommunityprovidesitsmemberswithalibraryofscriptsuponwhichtheindividualmayjudgetheinternaldramaofhismultipleidentities.Formyth…servesnotonlyasapatterntowhichoneaspiresbutalsoasacriterionfortheself-critic.(ibid.,p.281)Mythandidentity,therefore,existinasymbioticrelationship,theonewiththeother.Mythsreflecttheconflictualandvariousidentitiesofthepsychewhich,inturn,findsexplanationsandmodelsofbehaviourfromamongthecorpusofimagesandidentitiesthatmythsprovide.Whatisultimatelyclearisthat…mythmustbeamodelforimitating,aprogrammaticdramatobetriedonforafit.(ibid.,p.284). 28DRAMA,NARRATIVEANDMORALEDUCATIONAsdramaisnotonlytheprincipalformofmythbutisalsoaprioritheshapeofthehumanpersonality,mythshaveparticularsignificance;theyform‘thetreasureofaninstructedcommunity’(ibid,p.286)astheyenableindividualstounderstandtheinnerconflictscausedbytheirinternalcastofidentities.Theimplicationisthatweshouldviewourlivesnotonlyasnarrativebutasenactednarrative,wherethemodelsweimitateareinenactiveformandwheremuchofthedramatakesplacewithinthepsyche.Ifdramaimitateslife,itisbecauselifeisexperiencednotonlyasnarrativebut,moreparticularly,asdramaticnarrative.ThatisnotallthatBrunerisimplying.Mythsprovideusnotonlywithmodelstoaspiretobutwithcriteriaforself-criticism.Thepsychehasadialogicalrelationshipwiththemythswhichinfluenceit,acriticalawareness,asenseofjudgmentandchoiceofidentity.Andtheprevailingmythsneedtobesuchthattheyfitthevarietiesofourplightandouraspirationssothatchoicesareindeedviable;andthisBrunerdoubtedtobethecaseincontemporarysociety.Allthatiscertainisthatweliveinaperiodofmythicconfusionthatmayprovidetheoccasionforanewgrowthofmyth,mythmoresuitableforourtimes.(ibid.,p.285)Mythicconfusionleadstofrustrationand‘alonelysearchforinternalidentity’.OnemightconcludeformBruner’sthesisthatmythswhichprovideadramaticfitarecrucialtothemoralhealthofasocietyastheyprovideindividualswithanintelligibledramaticnarrativeandwithroleswithwhichtheycanidentify.InMacIntyre’sterms:‘Mythology,initsoriginalsense,isattheheartofthings’(1981,p.216).Althoughhisconclusionsareexpressedthroughthediscourseofpsychology,theyresonatewithMacIntyre’sargumentonhowwelearnthevirtuesthroughstories.Bruner’sparticularusageofthetermmythisundefinedandembracesnotonlytraditionalmythologicalsubjectmatterbutalsoanyidealizedlifepatternswhichcontrolacommunity’svisions.ItisadefinitioninfluencedbyEliadeandCampbell,whichseesthepervasiveinfluenceofmythonthepsycheasnecessaryandbeneficial,aviewcontested,asweshallsee,mostnotablybyRolandBarthes.Bruneralsohasaverybroaddefinitionofdramawhichheconflatesrathertooeasilywithmyth.Williamshascontestedthistendency:Dramaisnowsooftenassociatedwithwhatarecalledmythandritualthatthegeneralpointiseasilymade.Buttherelationcannotbereducedtotheusuallooseassociation.Drama…isneitherritualwhichdisclosestheGod,normythwhichrequiresandsustainsrepetition.(1975,p.11)Inotherwords,wheremythsaspiretopermanence,repeatabilityandTruth,dramadealsinparticularityandspecificity.Thesearesignificantdistinctions,whichwillbereturnedtolater.Nevertheless,Bruner’sthreeareasofinterest—thecloserelationshipbetweenmythanddrama;howthisaffectsthemoralidentitiesofindividualsinparticularsocieties;andhowmythsneedtochange—willbecentraltothischapter,whereIwillarguefora MYTH,MORALITYANDDRAMA29conceptofmythswhichacceptstheirsocialnecessitybutalsothenecessityforthemtochange;whichrecognizestheirpowertoeducatebutalsotheirpowertodistort;andwhichviewstheirapparentuniversalityasapotentstimulustotheimaginationbut,inthefinalanalysis,asillusoryanddependentuponmutabilityandtranslatabilityratherthananyrealstateofpermanence.Withinthesetensions,Ibelieve,liestheirpotentialformoralregeneration,apotentialwhichneedstobetapped.For,ifthequestforidentity,thesearchforthegoodlife,isattheheartofthemoralprocess,whenitislonelyandinwardlooking,whenthecommunalnarrativesandthemythswhichinformthemfailtomakeconnectionswithindividuals,then,toborrowMacIntyre’sphrase,theseindividualswillbecomealienated,‘anxiousstutterersintheiractionsasintheirwords’(op.cit.,p.216).Andwherewereadmythinanadultcontext,soweshouldreadfairytaleinachild’scontext,forfairytalesthemselvesaremythicconstructs,collectivelypresentingmodelsforchildrento‘judgethedramaoftheirinternalidentities’,dramaticrolesembodyingconceptsofvirtueforthemtoidentifywithandtoimitate.Butthislatterclaim—that,withintheseparameters,wecanconflatefairytalewithmyth—needssomearguingfirst.FairyTaleasMythIfBrunerapproachesthefieldofmythfromapsychologicalperspectiveinformedbyFreudiantheory,sotoodoesBettelheim;but,whencomparingfairytalewithmyth,Bettelheim’sconclusionsaretypicallyorthodoxandclear-cut.Mythicalheroesofferexcellentimagesforthedevelopmentofthesuperego,butthedemandstheyembodyaresorigorousastodiscouragethechildinhisfledglingstrivingstoachievepersonalityintegration.Whilethemythicalheroexperiencesatransfigurationintoeternallifeinheaven,thecentralfigureofthefairytaleliveshappilyeverafteronearth,rightamongtherestofus.Thusahappythoughordinaryexistenceisprojectedbyfairytalesastheoutcomeofthetrialsandtribulationsinvolvedinthenormalgrowing-upprocess.(1976,p.39)AccordingtoBettelheim,childrenknowtheycanonlyemulatethevirtuesofthemythicalherotosomesmalldegree.Theseheroes,infact,aretheretofashiontheconscience,toimposeanidealisticsetofgoalsforchildrentoliveupto—aviewnotunlikeWalterBenjamin’s,althoughBettelheimseesthefunctionofmythashealthy,notoppressive.ForBettelheim,then,fairytalesandnotmythsarethestorieswhichofferrolemodels‘withadramaticfit’,promisingthepossibilityoffuturehappinessonearth.Whateverstrangeeventsthefairytaleheroexperiencestheydonotmakehimsuperhuman,asistrueforthemythicalhero.Thisrealhumanitysuggeststothechildthat,whateverthecontentofthefairytale,itisbutfancifulelaborationsandexaggerationsofthetaskshehastomeet,andofhishopesandfears.(ibid,p.40)Bettelheim’sdistinctionbetweenmythandfairytalesuggests,paradoxically,that,inBruner’ssenseoftheterm,fairytaleismyth.JackZipeshasnodoubtsthatthefairytaleis 30DRAMA,NARRATIVEANDMORALEDUCATIONindeedmyth,althoughhisdefinitionismorecomplex,hisuseofthewordmythmoreexpansiveandtheimplicationshedrawsmorecircumspect.Histheoriesaredrawnfromanideologicalstandpointwhichhasabroad,socialvisionofmythbutwhichmistrustsitspoliticalpurposes.IfBettelheimseesmythsasessentiallypessimisticandBrunerseesthemasmirroringtheconflictualidentitiesofthepsyche,thenZipesseesthemasdeceptivelyoppressive.WhatinterestsZipesishowmythsandfairytalescontinuetoexerciseaholdoverthewesternimagination.Theyappeartobenatural,eternal,tocontainuniversaltruths;butthisis,infact,anillusion.Thesemythsandfairytalesarehistoricallyandculturallycoded,andtheirideologicalimpactisgreat.Somehowtheyhavebecomecodified,authoritativeandcanonical….Theyseemtohavebeenwithusforcenturies,foreternity,butweneglectthemannerinwhichwecreatedgodsandmagictoholdourexperiencesandlivesintact.(1994,p.4)Thisillusionistheresultofanideologicalmythicizationofthetalesandtodescribehowthishasbeeneffected,ZipesreferstothetheoriesofRolandBarthes.Mythconsistsinoverturningcultureintonatureor,atleast,thesocial,thecultural,theideological,thehistoricalintothe‘natural’.(Barthes,1977,p.165)Ifmyth,accordingtoBarthes,is‘atypeofspeech…frozen,purified,eternal-ized,madeabsent…’(Barthes,1973,p.123),thenmythsassumethelookofgeneralitybutareladenwithhidden,ideologicallyweightedvalues.Thatfairytalesappeartobenatural,universal,ahistoricalandtherapeuticinfactdisguisestheirhistoricaloriginsasliteraryversionsoftaleswhichoriginatedinoralpeasantcommunitiesbutwhichwereappropriatedinliteraryformsfirstofallbytheeighteenthcenturyFrencharistocracyandlater,intheserviceofdomesticatingtheimaginationsofchildren,bythenineteenthcenturybour-geoisie.ZipesbelievesthatperspectivessuchasBettelheim’s,whichinsistonregardingthetalesasquasi-religious,sacredtexts,serveonlytoperpetuateabourgeoishegemony.Worshipofthefairytaleasholyscriptureismoreofapetrificationofthefairytalethatisconnectedtotheestablishmentofcorrectspeech,values,andpowermorethananythingelse.(Zipes,1994,p.15)Fairytaleismythbecausenoneofthisoppressivenessisimmediatelyevident.Thetalesarereveredaseternalanduniversal,whentheyare,infact,ideologicallyconstructed,historicallysituated,culturalartefactsthatcontinuetofascinate;buttheimportantpointisthattheyareopentorevision.Revisionistfairytalesarewrittentodisturbthevaluesoftheclassictaleinanattempttodemythicizethegenre,‘toalterthereader’sviewsoftraditionalpatterns,imagesandcodes’(ibid.,p.9). MYTH,MORALITYANDDRAMA31Zipes’perceptionoftheeducativeinadequacyoftraditionalfairytalesandhispromotionofnew,revisedversionscontrastswithBettelheim’saggressiveconservatismbutiscompatiblewithBruner’scallforanewgrowthofmythmoresuitableforourtimes.TherevisionsZipesrefersto,bothhereandinotherworks,areliteraryrevisions—thatis,ideologicallymotivated,individuallyauthored,new,printedversionsoffairystories.Suchversionstendtobemonological,prioritizingtheauthor’smoralvision.Whatismoreinterestingforthisstudyishisanalysisoftheoralfolktale,thehistoricalprecedentoftheliteraryfairytale,whichwasverydifferentinitsformandfunction.Fromthisanalysiswecanbegintoappreciatethatthereisanother,moredialogicalapproachtorevisingfairystories;foroncethestoriesarereaddressedinacommunal,performativemannerratherthanasaprivate,printedendeavour,therecanresultasignificantandtransformativeeffectontheirinherentvalues,approachingwhatWilliamshascalled:acomplexopeningupofritualtopublicandvariableaction;amovingbeyondmythtodramaticversionsofmythandofhistory.(1975,p.11)Oralfolk-talesweretoldbygiftedtellers,intendedtoexplainnaturaloccurrencessuchasthechangeinseasons,tocelebratetheritesofharvestingorhunting,toamuse,andtoofferpossibilitiesoffantasywish-fulfilment.Theirsocialfunction,accordingtoZipes,wastobringmembersofatribeorcommunityclosertogether,toprovidethemwithasenseofpurposeortelos.Itwasacommunal,notaprivateexperience.Thetalecamedirectlyfromcommonexperiencesandbeliefs.Toldinperson,directly,facetoface,theywerealteredasthebeliefsandbehavioursofthemembersofaparticulargroupchanged.(op.cit.,p.10)1Therearethreehighlysignificantpointshere.Firstofall,thetaleswererelatedinversionswhichwerelocallydetermined,notuniversalinBettelheim’ssense,dealingwiththemeswhichwererelevanttoaparticularcommunityataparticulartime;claimsfortheephemeral,universalandtimelesswisdomoffairytalesareverydifficulttosustainwhenweappreciatethattherewasneveranyone,original,sacredversion,actingasthebearerofpsychictruths.Secondly,thetaleswerepartofashared,publicprocess,moreakintoadramaticperformancethanaprivate,literaryreading;andfinallytheywereadaptabletochange,historicallyandgeographically,toaddresstheneedsandconcernsofparticularcommunitieswhichconstitutedtheaudience.Itisevidentthathereinliesawayofreappropriatingtheliteraryfairytale;fortheoraltraditionoffers,withinitsveryform,ameanswherebytheliterarytalecanbecommunallyredefined,repossessedor,asZipeswouldhaveit,demythicized.Demythiciza-tionmightbeunderstoodasaprocessakintotheraisingofpoliticalawareness,itsintentionbeingtoenablethemembersofacommunitytobecomecriticallyawareofthestoriesasmyth,torehistoricizethemandthuscreateacriticaldistancebetweenthelistenersandthetalesinordertobreaktheiroppressivehold.2Butsuchacommunalsharingofamythicstorymightalsobedeployedasthebeginningofaprocessofmythicrenewal,bywhichImeanthepresentationofthestoryfromamoralperspectivewhichrendersitproblematic,bringsconflictualelements 32DRAMA,NARRATIVEANDMORALEDUCATIONtotheforeandallowsfortheconstructionofnewmeaningsrelevanttoaparticularcommunity.Suchanapproachmightencourage,inturn,newperspectivestobesharedonhowthetalerepresentsthickethicalconcepts,thusworkingagainstthereifyingtendencyofmyth,definedbySlotkinas:‘a…processthroughwhichmetaphoricaldescriptionsofrealitycometosubstituteforanapprehensionofreality’(1992,p.73).InthiswaythetalecouldbecomedemythicizedinZipes’sensewhilstreclaimingsomethingofitsmythicfunctioninBruner’ssense.Suchanapproachtomythisnot,infact,new.InclassicalAthens,thetragicdramatistsincorporatedavarietyofcontemporaryelementsintotheirsharedmythologyinorderpubliclytoproblematizeandplayouttheethicalandpoliticalissuesofthetime.ByturningourattentionbrieflytotheseearlydramatizationsofGreekmythictales,wefindsomeilluminatinganalogies.Forintheveryoriginsofwesterndramaoneofitscrucialfunctionswastheprocessofmythicquestioningandrejuvenation,aprocesswhichhasalwaysbeenfundamentallyconcernedwiththemoralhealthofasociety,which,asweshallsee,continuestobeactiveincontemporaryBritishtheatreandwhichIshallproposecanandshouldbeactiveintoday’sprimaryschoolclassrooms.MythandMoralityinClassicalGreekDramaThesamemythologywasalanguagewhichserveddifferentmasterslongandwellasthedynamicsofthought.Itsuseineachperiod,however,wasdifferentandwitheachsocialadvanceitspreviousservicewasalreadydone.Thetribalkingsusedmythologytosupporttheirdynasties,thearistocracytoenhancetheirprestige,thetyrantperhapstoreconcileandappease,thedemocracytoexpressitsconflicts.(Little,1967,p.9)Little’sdescriptionofthehistoricallytransientmeaningsderivedfrommythologywithintheancientGreekworldissuccinct.Hestressesthesignificanceofthestoriesasbearersofsharedmeaningswhichwereadapted,orrathertranslated,fromeratoerainordertolegitimizetheprevailingpowerstructures.Thereisadanger,however,thatthepicturepresentedbytheabovequotationmayappearrathertooclear-cutandsimplistic.Forthestorieswerenotsimplyreappropriatedbythenewcontrollersofeachsucceedingsocialstructure;rathertherewasaconfusingperiodoftransition,wherethelanguageofthevirtues,containedanddefinedwithintheHomericmyths,becamenolongersufficienttoprovideunderstandingandguidanceforsocialaction.BythetimedemocracyhadbeenestablishedinAthens,thislanguagehadbecomeasourceofdebateandthetalesameansforexploringtheethicalandpoliticalvaluesofthepolis.MacIntyre(1967,1981)hasdescribedthismoraltransitionatlength.ForHomer,therewasnodistinctionbetweensocialroleandindividualvirtue.Amanwasdeemedtobegoodifhepossessed(i.e.performed)thevirtueofhisallottedsocialfunction;fortheking,theabilitytocommand,forawife,fidelityandsoon.Therewasnowayofbeinggoodwhichlayoutsidetheperformanceofone’sroleandshamewasfeltbythepersonwhofailedtoperformitsuccessfully.Moralconceptsweresocialfactsbutcouldonlybeappliedto MYTH,MORALITYANDDRAMA33thoseforwhomthesocialsystemhadprovidedavocabulary;slaves,forexample,layoutsidethemoralorderandwerethusgiventhestatusofchattelratherthanperson.ThepoemsofHomerpresentedanidealizationofaparticularkindofsociallifewhichbecameproblematicassoonastheideaofasinglemoralorderbrokedown.Oneoftheresultsofthisbreakdownwasachangeintheconceptofthenatureofvirtue,whichcametosignifycertainhumanqualitieswhichcouldbedivorcedaltogetherfromsocialfunction.Aspost-HomericGreecebecamemorewidelyawareofradicallydifferentsocialorders—throughtheimpactofthePersianinvasion,colonization,increaseintradeandtravel—thosephilosopherswhocametobeknownassophistsbegantodebatetherelativityofcertainmoralconcepts;forexample,asdifferentcitiesobserveddifferentcustomsandlaws,wasjusticeitselfarelativeconcept,definableonlywithinthoselawsandcustomswhichdifferedfromcitytocity?BythefifthcenturyBCmoralandpoliticalconservativeswerestilltryingtoretainthefixed,Homericmeaningsofthereceivedvocabularywhichhaddefinedthedifferentvirtuesoffriendship,courage,self-restraint,wisdom,justiceandsoon.Afailuretoachievethisstabilityoflanguageandmythwasseenbysomeasamajorcauseofmoraldegeneracy.Thucydides,forexample,madethefollowingindictmentofrevolutionariesinCorfu:Themeaningofwordsnolongerhadthesamerelationtothings,butwaschangedbythemastheythoughtfit.Recklessdoingwasheldtobeloyalcourage;prudentdelaywastheexcuseofacoward;moderationwasthedisguiseofmanlyweakness;toknoweverythingwastodonothing.(citedinMacIntyre,1967,p.12)Thesecausesofmoralconfusioninpre-classicalGreecearereminiscentofthepostmodernconditionwhichcharacterizeswesternsocietyinourownage,asimilareraofgrowingmoralrelativismwheretheprevailingmythsareclungtobyconservativesbuthavenonetheless,formanypeople,losttheirmoralcogency3,andwherethereiswide-scaledisagreementoverthemeaningsheldwithinthevocabularyofmoralprecepts.MacIntyredescribeshow,withinthiscontext,thephilosophersofclassicalAthensattemptedtoredefinethevirtues,notoutofanyclearsenseofagreementbut,inhiswords,‘asaresponsetoincoherence’(1981,p.135).Andthedramatists,inasimilarresponsetoincoherence,reworkedthestorieswhichweretheheritageoftheirmythologicallyinstructedcommunityandrepresentedtheconflictingviewsofpoliticalandmoralvirtuethatexistedwithintheirdemocraticsociety.AbrieflookathowtwoofthegreattragedianstreatedthesameHomericmythwillprovideanillustrationofhownewversionsofthesamemythcouldbepresentedtocarrydifferingmoralemphases.IntheOresteia(transl.Vellacott,1988)ofAeschylus,thestoryofAgamem-non’sreturnfromtheTrojanWars,hismurderatthehandsofhiswifeandherloverandthesubsequenttrailofmatricideandrevengethisengenders,ispresentedasaconflictofloyalties,betweenthosedemandedbykinshipandthoseowedtothelawsofstate.Althoughnosecureorfacilesolutiontotheconflictcanbeoffered,thedramaendsonanoteofcivilconcord,emphasizingtherationalpowerofjusticeembodiedwithinthecivillegislatureofAthens.Thefinalplayofthecycle,TheEuminedes,usesmythtoextolthenecessityofthisnewmoralcode,thatembodiedwithinciviclaw,asopposedtothepre- 34DRAMA,NARRATIVEANDMORALEDUCATIONdemocraticandtribalisticcodeoffamilyvendettaandvengeance,whichstillpersistedinplayingadisastrousroleinAtheniansociety.ThepurificationofOrestes’matricideattheconclusionoftheplayisanofferofhopeandanaffirmationoftherationalityofthedemocraticlegalsystemofthecity.Bycontrast,theElectraofEuripides(transl.Vellacott,1972),dealingwiththesameactofvengeance,portraysitasconceivedandcommittedthroughfearandweakness.WhereasthecommandoftheOracle,thatOrestesmurderClytemnestraandAegisthus,istreatedwithsympathybyAeschylus,itisportrayedbyEuripidesasachallengewhich,ifOresteshadthemoralstrength,hewouldresist.Hiscompliancewiththecommandispresentedasanactofmoralcowardice,theactofsomeonewhopreferstoobeyauthority,despitethewickednessofitsorders,ratherthanfaceuptomoralindependence.Bothplaysusethemythtoexplorethesamesocialevilbut,whereasAeschyluscelebratesapoliticalsolution,Euripidescondemnsthemoralweaknessofindividuals.AsWilliamscommentsinhisown,briefcommentaryontheplays:‘itisnotjustdetailthatisaltered;itisthedramaticmeaningoftheexperience’(1968,p.221).And,asaresult,themoralmeaningoftheexperience.4WhydiddramabecomethemediumfortheinterrogationandrevisionofmythinclassicalAthens?Brunerofcoursewouldseetheexplanationpartiallyinpsychologicalterms—dramabeingthenaturalshapeofmythbecausedramareflectstheshapeofthepersonality.Butmoreconvincingarethoseargumentswhichtakeintoaccountthepublic,politicalfunctionofdramaanditsdirectlinkagewithearliercommunalformsofstorytellinginwhatwasstillessentiallyanoralculture.Green(1994),intracingtheemergenceofGreektheatre,seesasseminalthefactthatAtticsocietywasinastateoftransitionfromanoraltoaliteratesociety,wherestorytellinghadtheimportantsocialfunctionarguedbyZipes.Itistypicalofmanysocietiesthatstory-telling…hastheeffectofbindingthesesocietiesorcommunitiestogether.Thecommonexperiencethesestoriesrepresentreinforcesthecommunalaspectsoftheirlife….Theatredevelopedinacontextwherealevelof‘public’performancewasthenorm,andwherestorieswereheardratherthanread.(1994,pp.5,6)Storytellinginversedevelopedduringsharedritualpractices,wherethepeoplemetasacommunityduringimportanttimesoftheyearandcriticaltimesoflife.Theatre,therefore,was‘aproductandanaimofcommunityactivity’(ibid.,p.6),Theperformancesbelongedtothecommunity.Theyweretheirs’(ibid.,p.9).Moreover,Greenemphasizesthat,althoughtheChoruscametoactonbehalfoftheaudience,thedividinglinebetweenperformersandaudiencewasneverfullyevolvedandthatconsequentlytherewasamuchgreatersenseofaudienceinvolvementthaniscurrentincontemporarywesterntheatre.ThissenseofgeneralinvolvementRushReim(1994)locateswithinabroaderanalysisofwhathedescribesasthe‘performanceculture’whichexistedinAthens.Heseesatitshearttheparticipatorydemocraticprocessitself,whereuptofourtimesamonththefreeborncitizensofAthenscouldmeettojoinindirectlywiththegovernanceoftheircity,havingtherighttospeakandtovote.Thisculturehedefinesasonewhich: MYTH,MORALITYANDDRAMA35playedoutitspoliticalandethicalconcernsinanaggressivelypublicandperformativefashion.(1994,p.74)TheGreeks’wasatheatrewithapowerfulsocialfunction,fortheirswasasociety,asMacIntyrepointsout,wherethecategoriespolitical,dramaticandphilosophicalweremuchmoreintimatelyrelatedthanisgenerallyacceptedinoursocietytoday.Politicsandphilosophywereshapedbydramaticform,thepreoccupationsofdramawerephilosophicalandpolitical,philosophyhadtomakeitsclaimsinthearenaofthedramatic….Welack,astheydidnot,anypublic,generallysharedcommunalmodeeitherforrepresentingpoliticalconflictorforputtingourpoliticstothephilosophicalquestion.(1981,p.138)ThislackidentifiedbyMacIntyrehasbeencriticizedbycontemporarypractitionerssuchasEdwardBondandPeterBrookwhoseeacentral,moralrolefortheatreinanyhealthy,democraticsociety.Itispreciselyhere(inthetheatre)thatwefindourneedforjusticeandnotmerelyforfoodandclothing—itisourneedforthemeaningtoourlife.(Bond,1995)MacIntyreseesthecommunalandpoliticalcentralityofdramaasinseparablefromtheparticularvisionitembodiesofethicalactioningeneral.Toadoptastanceonthevirtuesistoadoptastanceonthenarrativecharacterofhumanlife:thedifferencebetweentheheroicaccountofthevirtuesandtheSophocleanamountspreciselytoadifferenceoverwhatnarrativeformcapturesbestthecharacteristicsofhumanlifeandagency.(op.cit.,p.144)Heprovidesanimportantclueastowhatcharacterizesthedramaticnarrativeasopposedtoothernarrativeformswhenhedescribesas‘aSophocleaninsight:thatitisthroughconflictandsometimesonlythroughconflictthatwelearnwhatourendsandpurposesare’(ibid.,p.164).Thisunderstandingbringsusfull-circle,forbothheandBrunerseetheconflictsatthecentreofmythicdramaaseducativeoflifeasitislivedandexperienced.Inotherwords,justasmoralityisexpressedthroughsocialaction,dramaistheartformthatmirrorsandisshapedfromsocialaction.InAthens,drama,themostperformativeandpublicofartforms,wasanintegralpartofthedemocraticprocess;andthepubliclysharedreinterpretationofmythallowedforanopeninterrogationofmoralandpoliticalvalueswhichcouldbemanifestlycelebrated,revealedasconflictual,challengedorreassessed.Myth,MoralityandDramaTodayWhencomparingdramawithmyth,Williamsmakessomecrucialdistinctions.Drama,heinsists,is: 36DRAMA,NARRATIVEANDMORALEDUCATIONspecific,active,interactivecomposition…anopenpractice…acomplexopeningofritualtopublicandvariableaction;amovingbeyondmythtodramaticversionsofmyth….(1975,p.11)Williamschooseshiswordscarefullyand,asusual,theyaredensewithmeaning.Thefactthatdramaisspecificemphasizesitsparticularity;itisanactive,notapassiveexperience;itisinteractive—social,perhapsparticipatory;anditisacomposition,constructedconsciouslywithsomespecificmeaningorfunction.Dramaisanopenpractice,notclosedandprivatebutpublicandopen-endedsothat,throughit,theclosednarrativesofmythandritualbe-comevariablethroughaction,actionwhichmirrorsthesocialandmorallife.So,throughdrama,wemovebeyondthepresentationofmythsasnarrativeswhichaspiretocarryuniversalmeaningsirrespectiveoftimeandculturetoversionsofthesenarratives,eachexploringmeaningsdependentuponthecontextswithinwhichtheywerecreated.Inotherwords,ifmythdemandsassent,dramaimpliesdissentandthusexposesmythtopublicreinterpretationandchange.5Iamproposingthat,historically,inwesterntheatre,therehasbeenanassociationbetweendramaandmythwhichhasbeenoneofinterrogation,revisionandrenewalandthatthisprocesshastraditionallyhadamoralaswellasaculturalfunction.O’Neillissurelyrightwhenshestates:Theseancientmotifsandrelationshipsareplayedoutagainandagainthroughtheagesandstillspeakfreshlytous.(1995,p.33)Oftenthesemotifshavepermeatedwhatappearedtobenewstories,asthePhaedramythpermeatedZola’sThérèseRaquin,forexample;butoftenthemythhasbeenaddresseddirectlythroughareinterpretationofpreviousdramaticversionsofthemyths.GilbertHighet’stheorytoaccountforthepersistenceofmythicdramaisblunterthanmostbutcharacteristicofmany:Thecentralansweristhatmythsarepermanent.Theydealwiththegreatestofallproblems,theproblemswhichdonotchange,becausemenandwomendonotchange.(1957,p.540)Dickinson(1969)acceptsHighet’shypothesisandquotesHawthorneintheintroductiontohisstudy;Noepochoftimecanclaimacopyrightontheseimmortalfables.Theyseemnevertohavebeenmade;andcertainly,solongasmanexists,theycanneverperish;but,bytheirindestructibilityitself,theyarelegitimatesubjectsforeveryagetoclothewithitsowngarnitureofmannersandsentiments,andtoimbuewithitsownmorality.(citedinDickinson,1969,p.1)Permanent,indestructible,immortal.Suchhyperbolewillnolongerhold.Itimpliesthatsomewheretherelurksanidealversionofmyth,whosemeaningsareuniversal, MYTH,MORALITYANDDRAMA37adaptationsofwhichcanonly‘garnish’thisthingofsacredsignificancewhichcarriesitsownkernelofindestructibletruth.Anunhelpfulnostalgiacanbedetected,thereverenceforagorgeousandthicklypeopledpastwhichovershadowsthepresent.Kirkoffersamoreconvincingargumentfortheirendurancewhenhepointsto:‘theextraordinaryliteraryqualitiesoftheclassicalworkstheypervade’(1974,p.110).Itisthequalityandageoftheliteraryversions,somanyofwhichareindramaticform,thatprovidestheirawesomesenseofpermanenceandwhichhasledsomecriticstodrawnodistinctionbetweenmythanddramatizedversionsofmyth.Thefactisthattherearenopermanentversions.‘Itis…notpossibletoabstractasingle“orthodox”meaningof“themyth”’(1968,p.221).Williams’commentontheElectramythisbroadlyapplicable.Butwithliterature,asKirkhaspointedout,comes‘theconceptofthefixedtext’and,withthat,‘theconceptofthecorrecttext’(op.cit.,p.110).Itisonlyonestepfurthertotheconceptoftheculturallysacredtext.Inthepurelyliterarysources…themythstendtobetreatedassomethingspecial,asakindofself-containedwisdomreceivedfromthepast.(Kirk,op.cit.,p.108)6However,suchreverencedoesnotreflecttheapproachadoptedbythosetwentiethcenturyEuropeanplaywrightswhohavechosentoreworktheGreekmyths,writerssuchasGiraudoux(1935),Anouilh(1951)andSartre(1947)andmorerecentBritishtheatrepractitionerssuchasEdwardBond(1979)andCarylChurchill(1990).Heretherehasbeenarenewedandvigorousinterestinopenlyinterrogatingtheclassicversionsofthemyths.Feministplaywrights,inparticular,havebeenwillingtochallengedirectlytheideaoftheculturallysacredtextandIhavechosentoanalysearecentexampleofthis—TimberlakeWertenbaker’splayTheLoveoftheNightingale—asithighlightsanumberofissuesofcentralconcerntothisstudy.Formally,itinterrelatestomyththroughanadventurousintertextualitythatoffersaradicalalternativetoamorestraightforwardre-workingofthestory.Thematically,ithasatitsheartthesameconcernsarguedbyZipes,thatliteraryversionsofmyths,beingpredominantlypartofamalediscourse,holdandhidepatriarchalvalueswhichneedtobechallengedanddemythicized.And,withinitsreflectionontheculturaltransmissionofmyth,itprovidesacritiqueofthesocialandmoralfunctionsofdrama,withimplicationswhicharehighlysignificantforthepracticeofeducationaldrama.Notes1KirksaysverymuchthesamethingasZipeswhenhewrites:‘…talestoldbystory-tellers,orinlessformalways,havenoabsolutelyfixedoutlineinanon-literateculture.Thecentralthemesremainfairlyconstantbutthedetailsandemphaseschangewiththeinterestsoftellerandaudience’(1974,p.30).2SeeZipes(1996)whichdetailsprojectscarriedoutwithclassesofchildrenwherethisishisstatedaim. 38DRAMA,NARRATIVEANDMORALEDUCATION3See,inparticular,Bloom(1987)andBennett(1993).Theseargumentswere,ofcourse,rehearsedinsomedetailinmyintroduction.4ThisperspectiveissupportedbyscholarsofGreekTragedy.SeeKitto(1973)pp.104–106wherehearguesthattragicdramatists‘manhandled’themyths,statingthat‘Aeschylusmadethemythconveywhathemeant’(p.106).SeealsoTaplin(1985)p.165,whoemphasizesthat‘Greektragedyisentirelytopicalandthemirrorofitsowntimes.ItwascomposedfortheaudienceoffifthcenturyAthenians,notforaBronzeAgeaudience;anditsgeneralpreoccupations,moral,socialandemotionalarethoseofitsage.’5Iam,ofcourse,writingfromtheperspectiveofwesterndramahere.Asiantheatrepractices,onthecontrary,allowfornosuchchallengeorvariation,aswasgraphicallyillustratedinthecaseofBeijingOperabythefilmFarewell,MyConcubine.6TheresonancesherewithBettelheim’sapproachtotheclassicfairytaletextsaretelling.Althoughheproposesthatfairytalesarebettertoldthanreadtoallowforgreaterflexibility,hiscommentsuponwhichversionsshouldberelatedandwhyrevealthatthisflexibilityisindeedlimited.See1976,pp.150–156onthetellingoffairytales;andpp.166–183onwhy,accordingtoBettelheim,theGrimms’LittleRedCapispreferabletoPerrault’sLittleRedRidingHood. Chapter4Re-castingthePhaedraSyndrome:MythandMoralityinTimberlakeWertenbaker’sTheLoveoftheNightingaleInarecentlypublishedstudy,AlbertS.GérardexamineswhathecallsThePhaedraSyndromeinfourmajortheatricaltexts:HippolytosbyEuripides;PhaedrabySeneca;LopedeVega’sElCastigosinVenganza;andPhèdrebyRacine.Thesubtitleofhisbook—OfShameandGuiltinDrama—indicatesthenatureofthepreoccupationsofhisinquiry;notonlyisitananalysiswhichcontraststhewaythatseveralimportantplaywrightshavepresentedthecharacterofPhaedrabut,moreinterestingly,itisaninvestigationintohowtheirtreatmentofherrelatestothemoralandintellectualclimateoftheirtimes.ThestoryofPhaedra’sincestuousloveforherstepsonis,heargues,‘anarchetypalsituationoftransgression’andhisexplanationofitspersistentfascinationasasourcefordramaisworthquotinginfull.Inthenutshellofthenuclearfamilytheemergenceofasexualrelationshipbetweenthehusband’ssonandhisstepmotheroffersafascinatingdiversityofsubversivetrends,especiallywherethe‘natural’phallocraticauthorityofthepaterfamiliasissanctionedbypublicopinionandreligiousdogma.Suchasituationcompoundsadulterywithincest.Itbringsintoplaythefundamentalpsychologicalmotivationsofloveandhonour,sexandvengeance.Itexemplifiestheutterdisruptionofnaturalorderandmoralhierarchies.Italmostinevitablycompelsauthorandreaderaliketopassmoraljudgementandtotakesidesinthecontestbetweennaturalimpulsesandethicalprecepts.(1993,p.3)HeconcludeshisessaywithsomeinterestingobservationsonpostwartreatmentsofthePhaedrasyndrome,whichheseesashavingresurfacedinfilmssuchasIngmarBergman’sSmilesofaSummerNight(1956),LouisMalle’sLeSouffleauCoeur(1971)andBertolucci’sLaLuna(1979).Whatcharacterizesthesetreatmentsistheirlackofmoraloutrageandevencheerfulviolationofoneoftheultimatesocialtaboos,directmother-sonincest.Sucha‘trivializationofsexinart’heseesasdirectlyspawnedbythe‘postwarpermissivesociety,oneofwhosemostconspicuouscharacteristicsistheliberationofsexfromethicalconsiderations’(ibid.,p.134)andhedoubtswhetherthePhaedrasyndromecanberegardedasarelevanttopicforseriousaesthetictreatmentincontemporarysociety.GérardisnodoubtrighttospeculatethatPhaedra’sagonyofsexualguiltdoesnotspeakdirectlytothepreoccupationsofacontemporaryaudiencebuthisdiatribeagainstwesternsociety’s‘so-called“liberalism”andhedonisticlax-ity’(ibid.,p.135)iscritically 40DRAMA,NARRATIVEANDMORALEDUCATIONunhelpful.Issuesofsexandethicsremainverymuchattheheartofcontemporarymoralconcernbuttherearenowcompetingphilosophicalframesofexperiencethroughwhichtheyareviewed.Inparticular,FeminismhaschallengedtheveryphallocraticauthoritywithinwhichthePhaedramythisfirmlyrooted.Whereasastepmother’slustforherstepsonmayformerlyhaveprovedtobepowerfullysymbolicofathreattothemoralandsocialorder,fromafeministperspectivethisorderisonedefinedanddescribedbymen.Thisisparticularlysignificantwhenthethemesexplored—sex,shameandguilt—arerepresentedwithinthepersonofafemale.Infact,Phaedraisoneofmany‘guilty’stepmotherswithinthewesternmythictradition,stretchingfromPharoah’swifeinGenesistotheQueeninDisney’sSnowWhite.Asapartofthismalediscourse,thePhaedrasyndromecanbeseenasoneofanumberofpotentculturalmythsembodyinghiddenattitudesandvalueswithregardtomaleandfemalesexualitywhichneedtobeexposedandchallenged,astheydistortsocialrealityatthesametimeastheyhelpshapesocialassumptions;for,enshrinedasitiswithinmajorworksofwesterntheatre,themythmaybemutedinourtimesbutisbynomeanssilent.Iwishtosuggestthatsuchachallengehas,infact,beenraisedinTimberlakeWertenbaker’splayTheLoveoftheNightingale.InordertointerrogatethevaluesofthePhaedrasyndrome,Wertenbakerhaschosenanalternativemythastheplotforherplay,thatofPhilomele.ItisamythinwhichtheincestuouslustisexperiencedbyaKingforhissister-in-lawratherthanbyaQueenforherson-in-lawandwherethelustisconsummatedthroughraperatherthandeniedandrepressed.ItisacomplexplaywhichDavidIanRabeyseesas:theculminationofWertenbaker’squestioningsofthetermsandconditionsofusinglanguage,makingmoraljudgmentsandbeinghuman.(1990,p.527)Fromthisperspectiveitsthemesareindeedbroadbutitisthroughtheplay’sdialogicrelationshipwiththePhaedramyththatsomeofitsmoreimportantmeaningsemerge.Thisrelationshipisengagedonmorethanonedramaticleveland,throughinvestigatingit,wecanseehowWertenbakerdeprivilegesthedominantdiscourseofthePhaedrasyndromebyhavingitinteranimatewitharelativelyunknownmythwhichtreatsthesamethemesofsex,guilt,shameandvengeancebutwithcrucialunderlyinggenderdifferences.1Atthesametime,itraisesquestionsconcerningthemoralandeducationalfunctionofmythicdramaand,inparticular,theethicalneedforfemalevoicestoengagedialogicallywiththetraditioninordertobringtoitnewmoralunderstandings.AsAdrienneRichhaswritten:Weneedtoknowthewritingofthepast,andknowitdifferentlythanwehaveeverknownit;nottopassonatraditionbuttobreakitsholdoverus.(citedinHersh,1992,p.409)TheplayitselfisanadaptationofthemythofPhilomele(Graves,1960)andissetinthreedistinctplaces;inacivilizedAthenswithitstheatreandphilosophy,inthedarkernorthernKingdomofThrace,withitsDionysicritualsandsecrecy;andontheseavoyagebetweenthetwo.IttellsofhowtheThracianking,Tereus,asarewardforsavingAthens, RE-CASTINGTHEPHAEDRASYNDROME41marriesanAthenianprincess,Procne.LonelywithintheverydifferentculturalsurroundingsofThrace,ProcneasksTereustobringheryoungersister,Philomele,tobehercompanion.WhileinAthensandlateronthereturnvoyage,TereuslustsafterPhilomeleand,whensherejectshisadvances,deceivesherintobelievingthathersisterisdead.Inafitofjealousrage,hekillstheCaptainoftheshipwhomshehaschosentobeherloverandlater,herapesher.AsPhilomelethreatenstoshamehiminpublicforhisdeed,hecutsouthertongueandkeepshersecretlyaprisoner.Yearslater,PhilomeleisrecognizedinaBacchicfestivalbyhersisterassheperformsagrotesquere-enactmentofherrapeandmutilation.TogethertheykillItys,thesonofProcneandTereus,andduringtheirflightfromhim,allthreearetransformedintobirds;Procneintoaswallow,TereusintoahoopoeandPhilomeleintoanightingale.ThePhaedramythinteranimatesthetextoftheplayattwolevels;bydirectallusionandthroughasubtlerformofintertexuality.Theformeroccursintwocentralscenes,thefirstinAthenswhenwearepresentedwithfragmentsofEuripides’Hippolytosasaplaywithinaplay,watchedbytheking’scourtwithTereusasguest.Later,duringtherapescene,Tereusexplainsandexcuseshislustandhisrapebydirectreferencetotheplay.ButitisthemoresubtlestructuralinterplayIwishtoinvestigatefirst,bylookingathowthemoralvaluesnormallyrepresentedthroughtheactionsofthetwoprotagonists,HippolytosandPhaedra,aredisplacedandredistributedfromwithintheframeoffemaleexperience.AlthoughWertenbaker’stextualreferencingistoEuripides,sheisnotonlycontestinghisrepresentationalauthoritybuttheculturalcentralityofthemythitselfwhich,asGérardcorrectlypointsout,isdependentuponapublicsanctioningofphallocraticauthority.HippolytosandPhilomele,thevictimsofincestuouslustandviolence,arerepresentedasvirginalandvirtuous.VirtueinHippolytosischaracterizedlargelybyhischastity,autonomyanddisinterestinsexuality;heisamong:…thosewhommodestyentersatbirththeinstinctivelygood(126)(Euripides,transl.Bagg,1974)2Philomele’svirtuesareverydifferent.Shewarmlyembracesherownsensualityandthrivesonthewarmcompanionshipwithhersister,whomsheshockswithherfrankdescriptionofsexualdesire:He’ssohandsomeIwanttowrapmylegsaroundhim.(p.2)3Thispositive,albeitcomicpresentationoffemalesexualitycontrastsnotonlywithHippolytos’coldasceticismbutalsowithitsrepresentationbyEuripidesassomethingbothdestructiveandshameful.ThisissignalledbythevindictivenessofAphroditeandthehaggard,spirituallybrokenimageofPhaedraonherfirstentranceand,significantly,WertenbakerincludesextractsfrombothofthesesceneswithinhercondensedpresentationoftheEuripideantext.Thecontestbetweennaturalimpulsesandethicalprecepts,seenbyGérardtobeattheheartofthemoraldilemmaposedbythePhaedrasyndrome,isnotcastbyWertenbakerwithinthepersonofthefemale.Philomelefeelsnosuchcontest,nosenseofguiltassociatedwithhersexualityandisopenlycapableof 42DRAMA,NARRATIVEANDMORALEDUCATIONenjoyinganddiscussingit.ByshiftingthecontestfromwithinthefemaletowithinthepersonofTereus,sherefocusesittoincludeissuesofgenderedpowerrelationships.ThePhaedrasyndrome,infact,whenviewedfromtheperspectiveoffemaleexperience,isadistortionofsocialreality;sexuallymotivatedviolenceandincestuousabusearelargelyperpetratedbymalesagainstfemalesthroughtheactofrape.Wertenbaker’splayimmediatelyidentifiesthedestructiveforceswithinsocietyasemanatingnotfromexpressionsoffemalesexualitybutfromactsofmaleviolenceandthewarpedsexualityitengenders.Theopeningscene,whichestablishesthecompanionshipofPhilomelewithhersister,isframedbyoneofgraphicmaleviolenceastwosoldiersexchangeinsults,notablyofasexualnature,beforekillingeachother.If,intheEuripideantext,femalejealousyandlustareidentifiedasmanipulativecausesofviolenceanddisorderintheworld,inWertenbaker’splay,theseconditionsalreadyunderpintheveryauthoritarian,maleworldinhabitedbyTereus.ToquoteRenéGirard:Violence…ischaracteristicallyinitiatedandcontrolledbymen—itisgenderedpower,alignedwiththemale,whichistypicallyusedtoreifythestabilityofpatriarchalstructures.(citedinHersh,op.cit.,p.416)Socialorderisnotsynonymouswithmoralorderwithinsuchapowersystem.DespitethemoralisticcontemptforPhaedrautteredbyTereusashewatchestheplaywithinaplay,thismoralizingisexposedashypocrisywhen,askedbyProcnetoexplainhisrapeofhersister,theanswerhegivespresentsatruepictureofhismoralvision:‘Therearenorules’(p.47).IntheEuripideandrama,Phaedraisneverinanydoubtofherguiltandheroverridingconcernisforherpassiontoremainundisclosed.Thefragilityofherhonourisheightenedbythefactthatsheisawoman:Iknewthatmypassion,indulgedornot,wouldmakemerepulsivetoothers,especiallysinceIamawoman—oursexisaverydisgrace.(625)Herhonourablereputation(eukleia)iseverythingandshefearsshame(aidos)aboveallelse.Ofcourse,whetheritismorallyhealthyforasocietytocontroltheethicalbehaviourofitsmembersinthiswayisoneofthemajorthemesoftheEuripideanplay.AsCharlesSegalhaswritten:ThroughPhaedra’sconcernwithappearance,reputation,theoutsideworld,Euripidesraisesquestionsbeginningtobeaskedinhistimeabouttheinadequacyofanethicbasedentirelyuponexternal,socialsanctions.(citedinGérard,op.cit.,p.16)Butwhethertheybeinternallyfeltorexternallyfeared,shameandguiltgohandinhandinthepersonofPhaedra,despitethefactthatshecommitsneitherincestnoradultery.InTheLoveoftheNightingalethesameelementsofhonour,shameandguiltareinplaybuttheyarestructureddifferentlyintothetext.Tereus’crimesincludemurder,mutilation, RE-CASTINGTHEPHAEDRASYNDROME43incest,adulteryandrapeandyetwhenaskedbyhiswifeifitwasshamethatkepthimsilenthisanswerisstraightforward‘No’(p.46).IfPhaedra’sresponsetoherpassionistobecomeconsumedbyguilt,Tereushasnoresponseotherthanviolence.AsPhilomelesays:There’snothinginsideyou.You’reonlyfullwhenyou’refilledwithviolence.(p.35)Tereus’lackofshameisdramaticallyillustratedinthesceneimmediatelyaftertherapewhen,withthebloodofPhilomele’srupturedvirginitystillonhishands,hereturnshometoembracehiswife.ThisisinnotableironiccontrasttothewordsofPhaedrawhenshesays:MyhandsarecleanThestainisinmyheart(477)andlaterwhensheuttershercontemptforthedissimulationofunfaithfulwives:Howcansuchfrauds…Lookquietlyintotheeyesoftheirhusbands?(636)Thesocialrealityofrapeinapatriarchalsocietyisthatthestigmaofshamewillbeattachedtothewoman.Niobe,Philomele’snurse,asthevoiceofconventionalsocialattitudes,understandsthis:Acoolcloth.Onhercheeksfirst.That’swhereithurtsmost.Theshame.(p.31)Philomeletoo,hastoconfronttheassumptionthatnotonlymustshefeeltheshamebutalsoaccepttheguilt.Iwasthecause,wasn’tI?WasI?Isaidsomething.WhatdidIdo?(p.34)HerstrengthandhertragedyistorefusetoaccepteitherandtodemandthatTereusacceptboth:Itwasyouract.Itwasyou.Icausednothing(p.34)ShepledgestopubliclyshamehimbyshoutingoutthetruthtothepeopleofThrace.LikePhaedra,Tereuscannottoleratethetruthtobevoiced;but,unlikeher,heisamoralhypocriteandthesilenceofhisaccuserwillsuffice.SohecutsoutPhilomele’stongue.Speechandsilencearecentralissuesinbothplays.SpeechwillbetrayPhaedra’saidos,silencemaypreservehereukleia.: 44DRAMA,NARRATIVEANDMORALEDUCATIONHowcouldItrustmytongue—whichcansetothersright,butcannotevensensethedamageitdoestoitself?(612)Fromafeministperspective,Phaedra’sdesireforsilencemaybeconstruedasresultingfromherunquestioningacceptanceofapatriarchalmoralorderwhichusesshameasameanstooppressher;andwecaninterpretitasindicativeofapoliticaltendencythroughoutmuchofhistoryforthevoicesofwomentobesilenced.Suchaninterpretation,however,canonlybearguedthroughadeconstructionoftheEuripideantext.Wertenbaker’sdecisiontomakethesilencingofPhilomeledramaticallythemostshockingsceneintheplay,moreshockingeventhantherape,bringsthewholeissueofthesilencingofwomenliterallytotheforefrontoftheaction.ItcannotbeignoredanditspoliticalsignificanceisstressedbythewordsoftheFemaleChoruswhichovertlylinkthesilencingofPhilomelewiththesilencingofoppressedpeoplebothtodayandthroughouthistory.Helen:Whyareracesexterminated?Hero:Whydowhitepeoplecutoffthewordsofblacks?Iris:Whydopeopledisappear?Theultimatesilence.Deprivedofavoice,peoplewillreactwithviolenceandthisistrueofbothPhilomeleandPhaedra.ThescenedepictingPhilomele’skillingofItysisprel-udedbythefollowingwords:Iris:Imprisonthemindthatasks.Echo:CutoutitstongueHero:Youwillhavethis.AllisonHersh’sdescriptionoftherepresentationoffemaleviolenceintwootherfemalere-workingsofEuripides,CarylChurchill’sAMouthfulofBirdsandMaureenDuffy’sRites,isequallyapplicabletoTheLoveoftheNightingale.Theseplays,shewrites:dislodgetheconventionalbeliefinwomen’snon-violencetoproposeamodeloffemaleviolencewhichisgroundedinpoliticalresistance.(op.cit,p.416)BothPhaedraandPhilomeleareresponsibleforthedeathsofyoungmalesbut,whereasPhaedradeceivesandmanipulatesthemalepowerstructuretometeoutanactofpersonalrevenge,Philomeleisherownagentandheract,committedwhilesheissurroundedbyhersisterandthefemaleBacchantes,isarepresentationofbloodypoliticalrebellion.Itis,furthermore,adarklyironicalreflectionofPhaedra’sfearthattheshameofthemotherwillbetransmittedtothechildren(640–650);theviolencewhichTereushasinflictedwithnosenseofshameistransmittedbacktohissonandProcneforceshimtoconfronthisownguilt:You,Tereus.Youbloodiedthefuture.Forallofus.(p.47) RE-CASTINGTHEPHAEDRASYNDROME45Phaedra’svengeanceisachievedthroughafalseaccusationofrape.TheassumptionthatwomenmakesuchaccusationswhentheyarerejectedbyamanisapersistentoneinmalediscourseandhasrecentlyresurfacedinMichaelCrichton’sfilmDisclosure.Philomele’srape,however,ishorrificallyrealandsheachievesrevengethroughpubliclycommunicatingthis.Inordertomanageit,shewhohasbeendeprivedofavoicefindsonethroughtheatre.TheformandcontentofPhilomele’stheatricallanguage,withitsgrotesquemanipulationoflife-sizedpuppets,isreminiscentofArtaud’sTheatreofCruelty.4ItcommunicatestheTruththroughshockbutforher,asforBoal,theatrehasbecomeanecessaryandpoliticalact,havingasitsaimtheengendermentofsocialactiontoremoveoppression.ThisisaverydifferenttheatrefromtheonesheknewinAthens,whosevaluesindulgedherpreoccupationswiththevicissitudesofthehumanheartbuttragicallyfailedtoprepareherforlife,asananalysisofthesceneoftheplaywithinaplaywillshow.ThewholesceneishighlyironicasWertenbakertoyswithdifferentaudienceresponsestotheEuripideantextinafashionwhichisatonceplayfulandseriousinitsintent.Infact,thecharactersoftheQueen,theKing,PhilomeleandTereuspresentuswithfourcontrastingresponsestotheatre.FortheQueen,Euripides’dramaislikeanepisodefromapopularsoapandshecommentsthroughoutonlyonissuesofplot,onwholoveswhomandwhathappensnext.TheKinghasamoresophisticatedview;forhimtheplayshows‘theuncomfortablefoldsofthehumanheart’(p.10)andhebelievesthatitcanhelphimreachadecisiononwhethertoallowPhilomeletomakethejourneytoThraceinordertobewithhersister.However,hisapproachisthatofthepedantwhoseesartasasourceofmysticalunderstanding,asasubstitutereligion.HereactssuperstitiouslytothewordsofthechorusastheylamentHippolytos’deathandinterpretsthemasawarningnottosendPhilomeleawayfromherfather’slands.Ironically,thisdecisionwouldhavesavedPhilomele.Butsuchaviewoftheatreasapseudo-religioustouchstoneratherthanasastimulusforenlightenedactionandchoice,isshowntobeinadequate.ItiseasilydismissedbyPhilomeleandthekingfindsnowordstorationallyarguehisdecisionwhenitmeetswithherobjection.‘WehavenotheatreorevenphilosophersinThrace,’saysTereus(p.11).Heexpressesdislikeforthetheatre,ironicallyonmoralgroundsTheseplayscondonevice’(p.10)andyethereactsstronglyanddirectlytotheplay’smoraldiscourse.HeapprovesofAphrodite’sdeterminationtobringlow‘theproudheartwhichdaresdefyme’(p.9);hepronouncesPhaedra’spassionas‘wrong’andheractofvengenceas‘vile’(pp.10,12).Buttheheadymixtureoftheplay’spoetry,hisgrowingattractionforPhilomeleandherjustificationofPhaedra’slovehasaprofoundeffectonhim.Heisseducedbyitssensorialpotencyanditsfatalisticdiscourseand,notunlikeKingPandion,hewilluseittodisclaimresponsibilityforhisownactions.Philomelereactstotheplayinthemanneroftheculturallyeducatedandartisticallysensitizedyounggirl.SheunderstandsthetragicinjusticeofPhaedra’spassionandweepsattheend:It’stheplay.Iamsosorryforthemall.(p.13) 46DRAMA,NARRATIVEANDMORALEDUCATIONShecondonesPhaedra’spassionbyblamingitonforcesbeyondhercontrol;‘youmustobeythegods,’shetellsTereus(p.10)andexcusesPhaedra’svengeanceinfatalisticterms:‘Whydestroywhatyoulove?It’sthegod’(p.12).Morethanthis,Phaedraembodiesforheraromanticviewofintensefemalepassiontowhichsheaspires.‘Howbeautifultolovelikethat!’(p.10)ishernaivebutironicresponsetoPhaedra’ssuffering.HerconfusedbutintenseemotionalreactionsremindusofthedangerswhichBrechtobjectedtoinwhathecalled‘Aristotelian’drama;Philomeleseesthetheatreasaplacetoindulgeheremotionsbutfailstoseehowitisinfluencingherownlife.But,Father,I’mnotHippolytos.Youhaven’tcursedme.AndTereusisn’tPhaedra.(p.12)ItsdiscoursehastaughtherafatalisticviewofactionintowhichsheeducatesTereus.WhatsheseesasArt—beautifulandmovingbutdistantandunreal—heabsorbsasasetofvalueswhichwill,atoneandthesametime,guidehisactionsandexcusehishypocrisy.Thegodsarepresentedasthepersonificationofthesevalues.WhereasthePhaedraofHippolytosisanoppressedfigure,sufferingmoraltormentbecauseshefeelstheirforcesostrongly,Tereusthemaleoppressor,canmanipulatethemtoexcusehisviolence.Duringtherapescenehesaysasmuch,quotingPhilomele’swordstoimplyherowncomplicity:Whocanresistthegods?Thosewordsareyourwords,Philomele.Theyconvincedme,yourwords.(p.29)But—andthisisthepoint—theyarenotreallyherwords.Theyarethewordswhichreflect,albeitdistortedly,thevaluesembeddedwithinthefundamentallymalediscourseoftheplay.ItissignificantthatTereusfindswithinthemaphilosophytojustifyhisviolence.Inthissense,Philomeleisbetrayedbyherupbringingandhereducation;hencethequotefromSophocles’losttragedywhichprologuesTheLoveoftheNightingale:We(women)arenothing;whoinourfathers’houseLive,Isuppose,thehappiest,whileyoung,Ofallmankind;foreverpleasantlyDoesFollynurtureall.(p.xi)Thiscompletestheironywithinthewordsspokentoherfather,quotedabove:‘Youhaven’tcursedme’.Deprivedoftheknowledgethatwillhelpherunderstandsocialrealitybybeingexposedtostorieswhichdonotadequatelyreflectfemaleexperience,shehas,indeed,beenfigurativelycursedbyherfatherandtheinstitutionalizeddiscourseheisapartof.Greektheatre,asmuchasanyothertheatreinwesternhistory,hadanessentiallymoralpurpose.InchoosingGreekmythologyassourcematerialtotreatthesubjectofrapeandthesilenceimposedonthevoicesofitsvictims,Wertenbakerisovertlysignallingthatherdrama,too,isamoralone.ButifGreektragictheatre,asBakhtin RE-CASTINGTHEPHAEDRASYNDROME47wouldhaveit,wasfundamentallyanauthoritariandiscoursewhich‘monologized’moralexperience,(Kelly,op.cit.,p.44)hersisdialogicinthesensearguedbyHeleneKeyssar:(here)wefindthemostdeliberateandconsciousassertionsofpolyphony,ofrefusalstoassertorfinalisedominantideologies,ofresistancestopatriarchalauthorityandtoaunifiedfieldofvision.(op.cit,p.95)Itisaplayinwhichmorequestionsareposedthananswersgivenandwhichhasatitsmoralcentrethedialogicalinterplayoftwomyths,theonevoicedfromwithinatraditionofmalediscourse,theotherchosentointerrogatethatmythinthedifferentvoiceofawoman5.Theambivalenceandnon-resolutionoftheactionattheendoftheplaygivesfurtherdramaticformtothisdialogism.ItyswantsPhilomele,nowanightingale,tosingbutshewilldosoonlyifhewillaskherquestions.Thesceneconcludesasfollows:Philomele:DoyouunderstandwhyitwaswrongofTereustocutoutmytongue?Itys:Ithurt.Philomele:Yes,butwhywasitwrong?Itys:(Bored)Idon’tknow.Whywasitwrong?Philomele:Itwaswrongbecause—Itys:Whatdoeswrongmean?Philomele:Itiswhatisn’tright.Itys:Whatisright?(TheNightingalesings)Didn’tyouwantmetoaskquestions?(Fade)(p.49)Theelusivenessofmoralcertaintyonlyemphasizestheneedtokeepaskingthefundamentalmoralquestions.Thedramaticimageisofafemaleencouragingayoungmaletokeepaskingthemofher,togainafemaleperspectiveonmoralexperience.Buthervoiceuttersnousefulanswers;ratherdotheyreflectthecircularityandimpenetrabilityofmyth,andeventuallyitistransformedintothesongoftheNightingale,aestheticallybeautifulbutdevoidofallrationalmoralcontent.Earlierintheplay,theMaleChoruspresenteduswiththreedefinitionsofmyth,whichresonatewiththetheoriesofBarthes;mythas‘publicspeech’;mythas‘thecontentofthatspeech’;mythas‘theobliqueimageofanunwantedtruth,reverberatingthroughtime’(p.19).Herewehaveadramaticimagewhichhighlightstheneedtoachievemoralunderstandingbyinterrogatingtheculturalvaluesthatresonatethroughtimefromthemythicdramaswhichhelpshapeouractions.Atthesametime,itrepresentsthehistoricalabsenceofthevoicesofwomeningivingdramaticexpressiontotheirmoralinterpretationsofthesemyths.Byre-workingandre-evaluatingthePhaedrasyndrome,Wertenbakerhassoughttofindsuchavoiceandpresentuswithamodelfordoingsothatisasartisticallyinnovativeasitissociallynecessary. 48DRAMA,NARRATIVEANDMORALEDUCATIONNotes1CfHelenKeyssar’scomments:Thespectacleanddialogueoftheatremediatebutdonotresolvedifferences:theessentialstrategy…istobringtogetherdiversediscoursesinsuchawaythattheyinteranimateeachotherandavoidanyoverarchingauthorialpointofview’(1991,p.95).2ThisandallsubsequentquotesfromtheEuripideantextarefromHippolytos,translatedbyRobertBagg,(1974).Referencesprovidedarefromthenumberedlinesofverse.3ThisandsubsequentquotesfromTheLoveoftheNightingalearefromtheFaber&Faberedition(1989).Quotesareprovidedwithnumberedpagereferences.4‘L’actionduthéâtr…estbienfaisantecarpoussantleshommesasevoirtelsqu’ilssont,ellefaittomberlemasque,elledécouvrelemensonge,laveulerie,labassesse,latartuferièArtaud(1964),p.44.5CfGilligan:‘Inthedifferentvoiceofwomenliesthetruthofanethicofcare,thetiebetweenrelationshipandresponsibilityandtheoriginsofaggressioninthefailureofconnection’(1982,p.173). Chapter5Emotion,ReasonandMoralEngagementinDramaWertenbaker’splayisintendedtohaveastrongemotionalimpact.LikePhilomelewatchingthefateofPhaedra,wemaywellbemovedtotearsbyhersuffering.Wewillalmostcertainlybehorrifiedandoutragedbyherrapeandmutilation,angryatTereus’violenceandhypocrisybutperhapsshockedandconfusedattheformhervengeancetakes.Attheendoftheplay,weareleftwithquestionswhichneedtobeaddressed,notonlywithregardtoourownemotionalreactionstotheeventswehavewitnessedbutalsotoissuesofcruelty,injusticeandrevengepertainingtoourcontemporaryworld,inparticularconcerningactsofviolencecommittedbymenagainstwomen.Theemotionsarearousedtostimulatedebateandargument;theyaremeanttodisturbandprovokediscordamongtheaudience,sothattheissuesraisedbytheplaydonotdisappearfromconsciousnessoncetheaudienceleavestheauditorium.Theplaceofemotionandreasoninthemoralprocess,andtherelationshipbetweenthetwo,havebeenattheheartofphilosophicaldebateoverthenatureofmoralitysincethetimeofPlatoandAristotle.Unsurprisingly,thisrelationshiphasalsopreoccupiedthosetheoristsandpractitionerswhobelievethatdramahasamoralfunction,themostinfluentialtwentiethcenturyexponentbeingBertoltBrecht.Weneedatypeoftheatrewhichnotonlyreleasesthefeelings,insightsandimpulsespossiblewithintheparticularhistoricalfieldofhumanrelationsinwhichtheactiontakesplace,butemploysandencouragesthosethoughtsandfeelingswhichhelptransformthefielditself.(Brecht,inWillett,1974,p.190)ForBrecht,theatrewasaforumtopromoteasocialistworldview,wheremoralquestionswereofparamountconsiderationbutseenasinextricablylinkedtopoliticalandeconomicprocesses.‘IwouldliketobegoodbuthowcanIpaymyrent?’Shen-Te’spleatotheGodsinTheGoodPersonofSetzuanisindicativeofBrecht’sbeliefthatgoodnessisnaturaltohumankindbutsocialstructures,whenunjust,militateagainstit.Brecht,particularlyinhisearlywritings,sawemotionasthepotentialenemyofreasoninthetheatre;andheobjectedtowhathetermednon-epic,Aristoteliandramabecauseofthewayitusedemotiontodrawtheaudienceintoatotalidentificationwiththesufferingsofaprotagonist.InBrecht’smind,thiskindofabandonmenttosensationledanaudiencetoignorethemoraldecisionswhichmotivatedtheaction,1tolearnnothingabouthowhumanforcesproduceinjusticeandhowthiscanberemedied.Moredamningly,itled 50DRAMA,NARRATIVEANDMORALEDUCATIONthemtopitysuchsufferingbuttosenseitasinevitable.Hisownepictheatrewasintended,therefore,toaddressprimarilytheintellectratherthantheemotionsinordertoencouragetransformative,politicalaction.Fortheepictheatreisaprocessof‘demystification’ofthosehithertonameless,anonymousforces:Togivethemnameandplace,removefromthemtheirinscrutable‘mythology’,de-Satanizethemandde-mythologizethem.Theessenceofthenewtheatreistode-alienateman,restorehimtoaconsciousnessofactivepower…toprovokehimintoseeingthatchangeispossible.(Ewen,1970,p.222)Ithasbeenstronglyarguedthat,toanextent,Brecht’sbestplaysworkdespiteratherthanbecauseofhistheories:2that,inaplaysuchasTheLifeofGalileo,heallowedthesensuousnessofthemantopredominate,foremotionstoplayamuchlargerpartinhispracticethanwasarguedinhistheory.ButBrechtneverinfactobjectedtoemotionperse,rathertoitspotentiallynumbingeffectontheintellect.Wertenbaker’splayisBrechtianinitsemotionaleffectbecausethevictimoftheactionisclearlyidentifiableasrepresentativeofasocialgroupofvictims,notasanisolated,uniquecase;andthesufferingisseenastheeffectofmaleviolence,notthedivinehandofFateorofsomeunavoidable,uncontrollableforce.Brecht’stheoriesemphasizethatemotionscanbeharnessedintheserviceofmoralactionbutthattheymustchallenge,arouseandprovoketheaudience,notsimplymovethemtopity.AmorerecentandinfluentialcritiqueofAristotlehasbeenmountedbyAugustoBoal.Boal’sargumentislongandcomplexanddrawsnotonlyuponthePoeticsbutalsotheNichomacheanEthicsandthePolitics(Boal,1979,Part1).Inbrief,BoalarguesthatAristotle,equatingthevirtueswiththegoodlife,concludedthatthehighestvirtueofallwasjusticeandthatjusticewasenshrinedwithintheconstitutionofthepolis.Lawsaretherefore,accordingtoAristotle,themaximumexpressionofjustice;and,ashappinessisachievedthroughbeingvirtuous,thenecessaryconclusionisthathappinessconsistsinobeyingthoselaws.Suchavisioniselitist,beingallverywellforthosewhohaveframedthelawstosustaintheirpower,arguesBoal—inthecaseofancientGreece,thefree,male,aristocraticclasses—butonlyforthoseclasses.Asapopulationcannotbeuniformlycontentorsatisfied,itmustberendereduniformlypassivethroughrepression.Oneofthemosteffectivemeansofoppression,accordingtoBoal,isGreektragedywhich‘existsasafunctionoftheeffectitseeks,catharsis’(1979,p.27).CatharsisisdefinedbyBoalasaformofcorrectionandpurification;pityandfeararethemeans,nottheendsofthisprocess.Whattragedyseekstodo—andsucceedsindoingmosteffectively—istopurgethespectatorofanyanti-socialelements,anyurgetodisobeyoroverthrowthelaws;forAristotle,suchurgesarevices,errorsorweaknesseswhichneedtobedestroyed.Thissystem(oftragedy)functionstoplacate,satisfy,eliminateallthatcanbreakthebalance—all,includingtherevolutionarytransformingimpetus…itisdesignedtobridletheindividual,toadjusthimtowhatpre-exists.(ibid.,p.47) MORALENGAGEMENTINDRAMA51Boalarguesthatthispoetic-politicalsystemforintimidatingthespectator,foreliminatingbadorillegaltendencies,isstillinoperationtodayinsuchpopularculturalformsaswesternsandsoaps.3InBoal’sownTheatreoftheOppressed,emotionhastheoppositefunction;ratherthanactingasthemeansbywhichrevolutionaryimpulsesarepurged,itisthemeansbywhichtheyarearoused.Bybecominginvolvedintheaction,byexperiencinganoppressionthroughdramaticparticipationandattemptingtoresolveit,spect-actorsareprovoked,cajoledandhopefullyempoweredintoanunderstandingofthenatureofaparticularoppressionandthewaysitmightberedressed:Itisnottheplaceofthetheatretoshowthecorrectpath,butonlytoofferthemeansbywhichallpossiblepathsmaybeexamined.(ibid.,p.141)Individualsthemselvesmustbefreetochoosethepaththeyseeasappropriate.Boal’stheatre,inmanyways,istheheirtoBrecht’s,whereemotionissupposedtoservereasoninatheatrewhichisdesignedtoactasarehearsalfortherevolution;andwheremoralandpoliticalactionareinseparable.TheinfluenceofBoalhasbeenmarkedonBritishdramateachers,bothatprimaryandsecondarylevel,andforumtheatreisnowastandardstrategyintheclassroom.4Withthisinfluence,andtheinfluenceofBrecht,hascomeanaccompanyingneglectofAristotleamongestablishedtheorists,mostofwhomidentifythemselveswiththepoliticalleft.5Thisstrikesadiscordantnotewiththoseareasofmoralphilosophyandresearchtheorywhichhavehadastronginfluenceonthisstudy,elaboratedinotherchapters,bynomeansdominatedbyfiguresontherightandwheretherehasbeenamarked,resurgentinterestinAristotle’sethicaltheories.6ItalsojarswiththeoriesofthedemocraticfunctionoftheatreinAthens,describedinChapter3,andsmacksofasimplisticattempttojudgethepoliticsandcultureofAncientGreecefromacontemporaryleft/rightperspective.Infact,toacceptthetheoriesofBrechtandBoalwithoutcloserscrutinyistocloseoureyestootherpossibleunderstandingsofAristotle’stheoryofthemoralpurposesoftheemotions,understandingswhich,Iwouldargue,canassistusintheplanningofdramaticexperiencesforchildrenandwhicharenotatoddswiththeempowermenttoactionurgedbybothhisantagonists.Aristoteliantheatrestandscondemnedforitsoppressiveorcoerciveuseofemotion,principallythroughtheprocessofcatharsis,becauseitpreventsrationalthinkingandobfuscatesmoralunderstanding.Thisconclusion,however,hingesupontwoassumptions,bothofwhicharedebatable:thatthereisastable,agreeddefinitionofcatharsis,despitethefactthatthishaseludedscholarsforcenturies;andthatthereisastrongdichotomybetweenemotionandrationality,withrationalcognitionbeingthequalitativelysuperiorofthetwo.Toapproachthelatterpoint,itisevidentthattherationalistpositionembracedbyBrechtinhisearlywritingsisthephilosophicalheirtoaperspectivepervasiveinwesternthoughtsincetheEnlightenment.WhenDavidHume,forexample,concludedthatmoralityneededtobeexplainedandjustifiedwithreferencetothepassions,hedidsoafterhavingfirstconcludedthatitcouldnotbetheworkofreason.Inresponse,Kantbasedmoralityfirmlywithinthedomainofreason,asheconcludedtheconverse—thatitcouldnotbeplacedwithintheemotions(MacIntyre,1981,p.49).Sucheither/or 52DRAMA,NARRATIVEANDMORALEDUCATIONconceptualparadigmswhicharethelegacyoftheEnlightenmentare,however,inadequatetodescribethecomplexinteractionsofcognition,emotion,sensoryfeelingandrationalitywhichcharacterizemuchofhumanactivity.Theconceptof‘irrationalfear’,forexample,isvoicedoftenenough.Suchaconceptimpliesthattheemotionoffearcan,andattimesoughttobe,rational.Itisalsoclearthatchildrencanlearnfear—ofstrangers,forexample,orofunsafesex.Theimportantthingisthattheemotion,inthiscasefear,hasanobjectinrelationtowhichitissuitable;andthatfearisunderstoodasrationalwhenfeltinappropriatecontexts.AsInglishaswritten:Feelingsthemselvesare…intimateandcentraltocognitionandrecognitionofthesocialandpublicworld.(1986,p.73)7AndSchefflerhascommented:Thelifeofreason…requiressuitableemotionaldispositions.Itdemands,forexample,aloveoftruthandacontemptforlying…revulsionatdistortion,disgustatevasion,admirationattheoreticalachievement….Thewonderisnotthatrationalcharacterisrelatedtotheemotionsbutthatanyoneshouldeverhavesupposedittobetheexceptiontothegeneralrule.(1991,pp.4,5)ThisargumentoverthenatureoftherelationshipbetweenreasonandemotionwasattheheartofthedebateinmoraleducationaltheorydiscussedinChapter1,whereKohlberg’sKantianrationalismwasseentobewantingincomparisontothosetheorieswhichrecognizethefusionofemotionalandrationalcognitioninthemorallife.AtheorywhichemphasizestheparamountimportanceofoneovertheotherforthepurposesofmorallearninginthetheatremustbesimilarlysuspectandBrecht’smostwidelyadmiredplays—TheCaucasianChalkCircle,MotherCourageandHerChildren,TheLifeofGalileo—allworkbynegatingsuchadichotomyratherthanbyillustratingit.So,forexample,whenGrushahearsthecryofthechild,thisisnarratedbythestorytellerinawaysupposedtokeepouremotionsincheck;yetitcanbeamomentofgreatandfocusedemotioninawaywhichilluminateshowemotionandcognitionareinseparable.Fortounderstandherplightistofeelit;weknowitintermsoftheemotions,notinspiteofthem.DavidBest’sargumentsinsupportoftherationalityoffeelingwithintheArtsaddfurtherweighttothisclaim;that:emotionalfeelingsarenotseparatefromoropposedtocognitionandunderstanding,but,onthecontrary,emotionalfeelingsarecognitiveinkind,inthattheyareexpressionsofacertainunderstandingoftheirobjects.(Best,1992,p.9)Heisparticularlyatpainstodenouncethesubjectivistconceptionofemotionalfeeling,whichconstruesemotionsonthemodelofsensations,as‘radicallyoversimple’(ibid.,p.6).Sensorialresponse—painifIamhitwithahammer,irritationifIamstungbyanettle—isindependentofcognition,aswefeelitwhetherweknowaboutthesourceornot. MORALENGAGEMENTINDRAMA53Emotionalresponse,bycontrast—fearofthestick,annoyancewiththenettles—isdependentuponcognition.AsBestpointsout:itispreciselythecrucialroleofcognitionwhichdistinguishesemotional-feelingsfromsensation-feelings.(ibid.,p.6)Boal,bycontrast,makesnodistinctionbetweenthetwowhenhedescribesartas‘asensorialwayoftransmittingknowledge’(op.cit.,p.53).Thisfailureisatheoreticalflawinbothartisticandeducationalterms,foritistheverycognitiveaspectoftheemotionswhichrendersthemsusceptibletogrowth,developmentandchange.Thecognitivefunctionofemotionisofequalimportancewheninvestigatingtheother,relatedobjectiontoAristotle,thenatureandpurposeofcatharsis.BothBrechtandBoalacceptthedefinitionofcatharsisbaseduponmedicalanalogy,asapurgativeprocessintendedtomaintaintheemotionalbalanceoftheindividual.Thus,whileBrechtemphasizesitsobfuscatoryqualities,Boalstressestheoppressivefunctionofthefeelingsitarouses.Neitherreferstosourcesortheoriststosupporttheirunderstandingoftheterm,arguingitfromwithintheirowninterpretationsofAristotle’sintentions.However,MarthaNussbaum,aclassicalscholarandphilosopher,hasrecentlychallengedthisdefinitionofcatharsisthroughananalysisofitslinguisticroots.Examiningitswordfamily,shearguesthat:theprimary,ongoing,centralmeaningisroughlyoneof‘clearingup’or‘clarification’i.e.oftheremovalofsomeobstacle…thatmakeestheiteminquestionlessclearthanitisinitsproperstate.(1986,p.389)Analysingvariouscontextswithinwhichitisusedinpre-Platonictexts,sheexplainshowcatharsisoftensignifiesspeechthatisnotmarredbysomeobscurity.Sheseesthemedicalcontext,usedtodesignatepurgationand,byanalogy,spiritualpurificationasaspecialapplicationofthismoregeneralsense.ForPlato,cognitionwhichiskatharosisobtainablewhenthesoulisnotimpededbybodilyobstacles.Catharsisistheclearingupofthevisionofthesoulbytheremovaloftheseobstacles;thusthekatharonbecomesassociatedwiththetrueortrulyknowable,thebeingwhohasachievedcatharsiswiththetrulyorcorrectlyknowing.(ibid,p.389)ThiswasthemeaningofcatharsiswhichAristotleinheritedfromhismentor.NussbaumarguesthathisuseoftheterminthePoeticsdescribesaparticulartypeofclarificationprovokedbytheemotionsofpityandfear,whichact,inthiscase,assourcesofillumination.Emotionscansometimesmisleadanddistortjudgment…Buttheycanalso…accesstoatrueranddeeperlevelofourselves,tovaluesandcommitmentsthathavebeenconcealedbeneathdefensiveambitionandrationalization.(ibid.,p.390) 54DRAMA,NARRATIVEANDMORALEDUCATIONFarfromobfuscation,then,theaimofcatharsisisclarification,learningthroughemotionaboutthosethingsthatmattermosttous.ThisinterpretationisinlinewithBest’sargument,inasmuchasitrecognizesemotionashavingacognitiveenergy,andwithacceptedinterpretationsofAristotle’sethicaltheory:ForAristotle,feelingsthemselvescanbetheembodimentofreason.Itisnotjustamatterofreasoncontrollingandguidingthefeelings.Rather,thefeelingscanthemselvesbemoreorlessrational.Reasoncanbepresentinthem.(Norman,1983,p.52)ThereasonforthepopularityofthetheoriesofBrechtandBoalamongthosewhohavewrittenaboutdramaineducationarepartially,Iwouldargue,pedagogicalandpartiallypolitical.Politically,manytheoristsanddramapractitionersfeelsympathytowardBrechtianvaluesandadmirationfortheextraordinaryandinnovativeworkofBoal.8Pedagogically,boththeoristsareattractiveastheyseethepurposesofdramaasinstructiveandempowering,validatingaparticulartypeofcontentforthedramalessonoftenpopularwiththosewholeantowardtheleft;topicssuchasmaleviolence,unemployment,homelessness,documentedbyDavidHornbrookandevidencedwithinthepagesof2D.9Theideaofcatharsis,ontheotherhand,initsmoretraditionalinterpretationasapurgativeprocess,hasbeenassociatedindramateachingwiththenowdiscardedvisionofdramaasthelessonwhereemotionalenergyischannelledanddischargedinanorgyofnoisy,ill-disciplinedself-expression(Robinson,1981,pp.152–55).CatharsisasinterpretedbyNussbaum,however,hasmuchmoreincommonwithwhathasforalongtimebeenseenasamainstreamfunctionofdramateaching;itstressesthecognitiveaspectofemotionandsuggeststhatdrama’seducationalpotentialcentresarounditscapacityforillumination,thuscallingtomindHeathcote’sfamousmaximthatdramaisaboutrevealingtochildrenwhattheyalreadyknowbutdon’tyetknowtheyknow.ThisfunctionofdramaineducationhasbeensuccinctlyexpressedbyRobinson:Theuseofdramainschoolstoengagetheexpressiveactionsofchildrenisoneofthewaysofenablingthemtoconfirm(their)personalresponsibilitiesbyinvestigatingwhattheirbeliefs,ideas,attitudesandfeelingsactuallyare.(Robinson,1980,p.161)Aristotlespecifiedthat,intragedy,thisclarificationshouldbeactualizedthroughpityandfearbut,followingNussbaum’sdefinition,itishardtoseewhyotheremotionsshouldnothavesuchpotentialinabroaderschemaofeducationaldrama;anger,indignation,repulsion,admiration,sympathy,orthe‘fruitsofthespirit’,suchasjoyandcommunalwell-being;allmightbeharnessedforeducationalpurposes,toclarifyourunderstandingsofthevirtuesasthickconceptsandthusinformourmoralvalues.Nussbaum’sconclusionswoulddoubtlessbecriticizedbysomeFeministsforassumingtheexistenceofanessentialistselfandforignoringtheissueofthepowerandthehegemonyofmoraldiscourse.10Inthislight,theclarificationmightserveonlytoreaffirm MORALENGAGEMENTINDRAMA55astruetheideologicallydominantvalueswehaveculturallyabsorbed.Wewoulddowell,forexample,torememberthefateofPhilomele,whosawinthefigureofPhaedraaconfirmationofhervisionofromanticlove.TheseareBoal’sobjectionsvoicedfromadifferentcriticalperspectivebut,inresponse,wemaypostulatethatnotallideologicallydominantvaluesarenecessarilywrongormalevolent;andthatcatharticexperienceinitselfisnon-ideological.For,whatevermyideology—Christian,liberalhumanist,Feminist,Marxistorahybridoftheseorofothers—therecanbelittledoubtthat,inthehumdrum,pettyirritationsandmessyconfusionsofeverydaylife,values,includingmoralvalues,canbecomeconfused,clouded,contradictory,nottosayinarticulateorill-informed.Thisisparticularlythecaseincontemporarywesternsociety,inwhatDavidHornbrookhasdescribedas‘thedenselytexturedpoliticalethnographyofpost-imperialliberaldemocracy’(1989,p.50).Whenweclarifythisconfusioninsomesmallway,webecomebetterabletoarticulateandunderstandwhatourvaluesactuallyare.Inthissense,theinsightsweacquirethroughcatharticclarificationareequivalenttotheacquisitionofemotionalknowledge.Theyare:…sourcesofilluminationorclarification,astheagent,respondingorattendingtohisorherresponses,developsaricherself-understandingconcerningtheattachmentsandvaluesthatsupporttheresponses.(Nussbaum,1986,p.388)Buttheyarepotentiallymorethanthis.Withemotionalknowledgecancomemoralknowledgefortolearnthevirtuesistolearnparticularfeelingsandparticularemotionalresponses.Virtuesaredispositionsnotonlytoactinparticularwaysbuttofeelinparticularways….Moraleducationisan‘educationsentimentale’(MacIntyre,1981,p.149)Inthefinalanalysis,catharsisitselfisnon-ideologicalandamoral.Moralresponsibilitylieswithdramatistsandteachers,withthosewhoharnessitsenergytoexploreorexplainorcreateparticularcatharticexperiencesinparticulardramaticcontexts.Whatmattersisthewisdomandappropriatenessofwhatislearnedthroughcatharsis,sadlylackinginPhilomele’scaseandservingtoremindusoftheseveryresponsibilities.Nussbaum’sinterpretationofcatharsisisnotdependentupontheexistenceorotherwiseofuniversalvaluesoranessentialistself.Therecanbenooneuniversalclarificationoremotionalresponsewithinadrama,ofcourse;itispatentlyevidenttoanyteacherorpractitionerthatadramahasnosingleeffect,predictableorotherwise,uponanaudienceoragroupofchildren.Responsescandependuponanumberofvariationswithintheindividualswatchingorparticipating:theirpersonalculturalbaggage,theirpastnarrativesandfutureaspirations;thesocialnatureofthegroupwhosharethedrama;or,asRobinsoninsists,whichever‘self’happenstobeprominentatthismomentintime.Noneofusconsistsofauniquesenseofself…Personalconsciousnessisamaelstromofcompetingself-imageswhichshuffleandblendcontinuously 56DRAMA,NARRATIVEANDMORALEDUCATIONaccordingtopastexperiences,immediateeventsandthesubjectstatestheyproduce.(Robinson,1980,p.155)However,toconcentrateoureducationalargumentontheself,ascriticsofdrama-in-educationhavetendedtodo(Hornbrook,1989,Chapter5;Nicholson,1995,p.28),wouldberathertomissthepoint,fortheemphasisindramaisneverprimarilyontheselfbutontheselfinrelationtoothers.Asanaudienceindrama,wewatchotherpeople;asparticipants,weroleplayorinteractwithoractasotherpeopleanditisfororassomeoneelsethatwefeel.Theemotionsstirredindrama,someofwhicharelistedabove,areother-regarding;11andstimulatedbyourpotentialforhumanattachment.ThisiswhatAristotledescribedasourorecticpotential,ourinnatecapacitytoreachouttoothers,oneofthegivensofoursocialnature,particularlyevidentinchildhoodandsimilarlyemphasizedbyfeministmoraltheoristssuchasCarolGilliganandNellNoddings(Gilligan,1982;Noddings,1984;Nussbaum,1986,p.264).Welearnaboutthemoralactionsofothersandspeculateuponwhytheydoastheydo;aboutpossibilitiesandalternativeswhereweareengagedtodrawfromourownmoralresourcesbutwhichstretchusandmakeusreflectpreciselybecausetheyarenotourpersonalstoriesbutsituatedinaworldofotherness.Clarificationofwhyothersmightactastheydo,andtheeffectoftheseactions,isourprimaryfocusofattention.Ofcourse,suchclarificationisinextricablyboundupwithourownmoralidentities,astheseactionsareviewedandapprehendedthroughtheperspectiveofourownvalues.Butthesevalues,culturallyandideologicallyshapedthoughtheymaybe,are,asRobinsonemphasizes‘capableofchange’(ibid.,p.160).Thenatureofmoralresponsetodramahasbeenapproachedfromadifferenttheoreticalperspective,onewhichtakesaccountofideologybutwhich,unlikethetheoriesofBrechtandBoal,isnotdrivenbyideologicalcommitment.TheconceptualframeworkprovidedbyBernardBeckermanprovidesamodeltoexplainhowdramacaneitherreinforceorchallengeourvalues.Beckermanarguesthattherearetwotypesofperformance,theiconicandthedialectic.Theiconicperformancecelebratesandconfirmsaudiencevaluesbyconcentratingandembodyingsocialvaluesandimages,itspointbeingto‘prove’whattheaudiencealreadybelieves.Hepointstopageantsandparadesasthemostextremeexamplesoficonicactionanddescribeshow,inthefieldofdrama,bothcomedyandmelodramaareessentiallyiconicastheyleavetheaudience’svaluesundisturbed.Interestingly,hecommentsthatmostpoliticaltheatre,suchasagitprop,canbecategorizedasiconicas‘itdoesnotchangepeople’sminds.Ratherdoesitconfirmtheopinionofbelievers’(1990,p.81).Incontrasttothis,Beckermanproposesthatdialecticactionsubjectsvaluestochallenge.Itworksthroughsubversion,bycreatinganappealingbutoppositionalclaimonanaudience’sallegiances,andisthusabletodisturbitsmoralsensibilitiesthroughtuggingatitsemotionsinoppositionaldirectionssimultaneouslyandthusforcingitintoreflection.Asaclearexampleofthis,hereferstothefinalsceneofGavinRichards’LondonproductionofDarioFo’sAccidentalDeathofanAnarchist,wheretheaudienceisshowntwoalternativeendings.Inthefirst,thejournalistleavesthecorruptpoliceofficerstobeblownup.Butthis,Beckermancomments,affrontstheliberalsensitivitiesofthewesterntheatre-going MORALENGAGEMENTINDRAMA57public;soanotherendingisstaged,onlytoshowhowitleadstohermurderatthehandsoftheseofficers.Inbothcases,theconsequencesaredevastating.Throughthisdevicetheproductionsetsdifferentsidesofourliberalsensitivityintoconflictwithoneanother.Wehavetoconfrontourownallegiances.Itisinthisway,throughdialecticaction,thatFoachieveswhatBrechtadvocated:simultaneousengagementanddetachmentthatforcetheaudiencetoresolveemotionaldisjunctionthroughthinkingabouttheimplicationsoftheplay.(ibid.,p.87)ButdialecticactionisnotjusttheprerogativeofBrechtiantheatre.InthecaseofShakespeare’sMacbeth,weareconfrontedwithamanwhocommitsactionswhichareabhorrenttousbutwhoispresentedasavulnerablehumanbeingwithamoralconscience:Totheextentthattheactorseducesusintosharinghismentalactionandallowingourempathicnervestovibratewithhisemotions,weareonhisside.Onesetofvalues,ourhorrorofmurderandtyranny,isjuxtaposedagainstanothersetofvalues,oursympathyforananguishedhumanbeing.(ibid.,p.86)Beckermanarguesthatallwesterndramawillbeeithericonicordialecticasitispracticallyimpossibleforittounfoldinavalue-freecontext.Thisistheresultoftwoprocessesuniquetodrama;thefactthatdramaisahumanmedium,wheretheaudiencecannotfailtomakehumanattachments;andthroughtheactualizationofconflict,or,inBeckerman’sterms,the‘interactionandcontrastwithonepersonstrainingagainstanother’(ibid.,p.83).Ashecomments:Thehumanattachmentwehaveforoneoranotherpersoncallsuponustomakechoices,whichinturninvolveacontextofvalues.(ibid.,p.83)This,Ibelieve,isaconceptwhichservestoconnectthetheoriesofBrecht,BoalandAristotleanditsimplicationsforeducationaldramaareworthexamining.Dramaticaction,whethericonicordialectic,worksbystimulatingourinnatesenseofhumanattachment,ourorecticpotential,anditdoesthisthroughtheimmediacyofhumanrepresentation.Inotherwords,fordramatowork,wehavetobemorallyengaged,tocareineitherapositiveornegativesenseaboutthepeoplebeingfictionallyrepresentedandwhatishappeningtothem.Thisisthecaseforbothiconicanddialecticaction.Inthissense,consciouslyorunconsciously,wemakechoices,decidingwhereourattachmentslieandthesechoicesarevalue-related.Theemotionswefeelandthemoralchoicestheyleadusintomakingareother-regardingandhappenduringthedramaticaction.Beckermanpointsoutthatiniconicactionthealignmentofvaluesisbetweencharacters—betweenthestockheroesandvillainsofcomedyandmelodrama,forexample;indialecticaction,however,thisalignmentisdividedwithincharacters,aswithMacbeth.Thisiswhatislargely 58DRAMA,NARRATIVEANDMORALEDUCATIONresponsibleforwhathedescribesasamoralriskfortheaudience,aprocesswhichhasbeencommenteduponindirectlybyGoldberginrelationtoShakespeare’sAntonyandCleopatra:…itexploresandquestions,intheveryprocessofpresentinghim(Antony),whatnoblenessoflifemightappeartobeasheisseenbythisandthatcharacter’seyes…andwhatitmightbetous,whoseethelifeinthisandthatwayofseeing.(1993,p.41)Theseconsiderationsofdrama’smoraleducationalpotentialemphasizethetwinelementsofobservationandresponsetoactualhumanrepresentation.Foryoungchildren,thisunderlinesthevalueofappropriateTheatreinEducationprogrammesandoffersstrongsupportfortheinclusionofRespondingtoDramaasakeyelementwithinthedramacurriculum(ArtsCouncilofGreatBritain,1992).Italsopointstothepotentialwithintheconceptoftheactor-teacher,wheretheteachernotonlytakesonadramaticrolebut,inaddition,consciouslyusesothertheatricalconventionsandsign-systemsopentotheactor—suchasgesture,costume,gait,toneofvoice,symbolicobjects—asresourcestoengagethechildren’svalueattachments(Lawrence,1981;Oddie,1984).Inthisway,theactor-teachercanharnessthemoralcognitiveenergyintegraltoother-regardingemotionsanddispositionssuchaspity,sympathy,indignation,solidarity,gentlenessandcharity,nottomentiontheirdarkercompanionssuchascontempt,antipathyandguilt.Buttheonusisnotentirelyontheteacherinrole,ofcourse.Beckermanwritesfromtheperspectiveofconventional,westerntheatre,whichhasevolvedclearboundariestodemarcatetherolesofperformerandaudience,whereasinprocessdramatheserolesbecomefarmorefluid.Atfirst,itmightappearthatthisformofparticipatorydramapromotestheroleoftheactiveparticipantattheexpenseofthereflectiveaudience.However,O’Neill,inparticular,hasarguedthat‘participantsinprocessdramacanbechangedintoobserverswithoutabandoninginvolvement’(1995,p.120).Herunderstandingisthat:wheretheparticipants’senseofbeingbothactorsandaudienceisactivelypromoted,thedramaticworldwillbebuiltonapowerfulandeffectivecombinationofdramaticactionandactivecontemplation.(ibid.,p.130)Hencethechildren’sresponses,whichareintegraltothemorallearning,canbecomebothactiveandpro-activethroughtheparticipatoryformofprocessdrama.Wecannowspeculateonhowsuchclassroompracticesmightrelatetoworkwithfairystories,inthelightofthetheoreticalpointsdiscussedsofar.ItisclearthatZipes’projecthasmuchincommonwithBrecht’s.Brecht’smistrustofAristoteliandramaandZipes’criticalstancetowardclassicfairytalesaresimilarinconcern,andBrecht’stheoryofdistancing,theVerfremdungseffekt,hadasimilarpurposetoZipes’owntheoryofdisturbance.BothBrechtandZipes,influencedbyMarxisttheory,wishforempowermentthroughknowledgeofthehistoricalandpoliticalforceswhichshapeourlives.Bothtendtowardseeingemotionandreasonasdistinct,mistrustingthepotentialoftheonetorendertheotherblind;andBoal’srevolutionarytheatre,seekingtoidentifyandempowerpeopletoovercomeoppression,hasasimilarpoliticalagenda.Thetheatreof MORALENGAGEMENTINDRAMA59BrechtandBoalseekstochallengeandprovoke,tocontextualizeandhistoricizeactionandBoal,inparticular,wishestoopenupproblems,suggestpossibilitiesbutleaveresolutionsopen-endedsothatparticipantscandecideuponthemforthemselves.Theirapproacheswouldsuggestauseofdramaticactiondialecticinitsintention,perhapsplayful,cer-tainlysubversive,challengingoropenlyinterrogatingthevalueswithinatalebyintroducinganoppositionalempathicalignment.AnapproachwhichsoughtthekindofclarificationwhichNussbaumseesascharacteristicofcatharsiscould,ontheotherhand,leadtoeithericonicordialecticaction.Thedifferenceherefortheteacherwill,Isuggest,lieintheintensity,thesustainedseriousnessofthedrama,lessplayfulthantheformerapproach;perhapsmoresubtleinitsstructureandmorepoeticinitsform.Suchhypothesesneedtobeexploredinthelightofthepointsarguedhereandinthepreviouschapters.Ihavearguedthatstoriesbestconveythenatureofthemorallifetochildrenbutthatthoseinthemythictraditionposeproblemswithintheareaofvalues.Theseproblemsemergefromthelackofsubjunctivityandparticularityintheirnarrativestructuresandfromthehistorical,literarytamperingswhichhaveoftenprovidedamonological,didacticoverlaytotheirstorylines.If,asIhaveargued,thereishistoricalevidenceforregardingdramaasanartformcapableofactivelyinterrogating,reinterpretingandrenewingthevaluesinmythictales,thenitdoessothroughestablishingalevelofpersonalengagementwiththesevalueswhichisatonceemotionalandcognitiveinnatureandmoralinitsfocus.Thechallengenow—anditisasubstantialone—istoseehowsuchtheorycanenlightenourunderstandingofclassroompracticeinthisarea.ThisIproposetodothroughcasestudies,whereanygeneralizationscanbeargued,asAristotlewouldhavepreferredit,fromwithinthecontextofparticularcases,whicharethemselvesthedeterminingfactorsofexperience.12ItistoafullerconsiderationoftheformsuchclassroompracticeandsuchresearchmethodologyshouldtakethatInowturn.Notes1SeeADialogueaboutActing(Willett,1974,pp.26–29)inwhichBrechtcommentsupontheperformanceofHeleneWeigelasJocasta’sservantinOedipusRex.Hesawherperformanceasaconsciousbutunsuccessfulattempttoinvolvetheaudience,togetthem‘totakepartinthemoraldecisionsofwhichtheplotismadeup’(ibid.,p.28).Herfailurewasnotduetoherabilityasanactressbuttotheaudience’smindset,whosawdramaas‘anopportunityfornewsensation’(ibid.,p.28)‘Forthisaudiencehangsitsbrainsupinthecloakroomalongwithitscoat’(ibid,p.27).2See,forexample,Esslin,(1984);Ewen,(1970);andGray(1976).Theacceptedwisdomofthesecriticshasmorerecentlycomeunderattack.SeeBrooker(1988).BrookerarguesthatBrechtsawTheLifeofGalileoas‘abigstepbackwards’(p.185)andpointstohislastplayDaysoftheCommuneasmainstreamMarxist,epic,dialectictheatre.Brechthadneverbetrayedorrevisedhisproject,heconcludes.3Brecht’scommentsonthefilmGungaDinareaninterestingcomplementtoBoal’sargument.Heexplainshowthefilmtouchedhim,howhelaughedatalltherightplaces;buthow,fundamentally,heknewthattheworldviewpresentedbythefilmwasdistorted,despiteitsartisticsuccess.SeeWillett,p.151. 60DRAMA,NARRATIVEANDMORALEDUCATION4SeeHornbrook(1989)pp.47–51.Twoofthelatestdramamanualsforprimaryteacherseachpresentdepoliticizedformsofforumtheatreasdramastrategies,alongsidefreezeframe,teacher-in-roleetal.SeeReadmanandLamont(1994)andWoolland,(1993).5SeeHornbrook,op.cit.,p.50.Sometimesthisneglectisreplacedbyopendisapproval.SeeNeelands(1994),inparticular,n.16,p.14.Foranexampleofhowcloselyandopenlyinfluentialfigureswithindramaineducationidentifywiththepoliticalleft,seeLawrence(ed.)(1993).Here,articlesbyHeathcote,BoltonandNeelandsareaccompaniedbyextractsfrom,amongothers,Brecht.6Carr(1986,1987)drawsheavilyuponAristotle’sethics,bothdirectlyandindirectlyviaMacIntyre,whenproposingthateducationbeviewedspecificallyasaprofessionalpracticeandwhendescribingacriticalparadigmforeducationalactionresearch.7Iamindebtedtothisarticleformuchofthepreviousanalysisoffear.8SeeonceagainHornbrook(1989)pp.47–51forabriefsociologyofthisalliancebetweentheeducationaldramaestablishmentandtheLeft.9See,forexample,Joyce(1987);Hall(1988);andEdmiston(1995)wheretheauthordetailsadramaaboutsocialprejudice.SeealsoHornbrook(1989),n.38,p.173.10SeeHekman(1995),p.40.ShenotessuchobjectionstoNussbaum’soverallneo-Aristotelianstance.11Interestingly,Carrsuggeststhatthevirtuesmightbeseenasbelongingtooneoftwocategories:thoseofself-controlandthoseofattachment.Thevirtuesofattachmenthedefinesas‘other-regardingattitudes’(1991,p.200),includingsympathy,benevolence,generosityetc.Theseareexploredinmoredetailinasubsequentcasestudy.12CfNussbaum(op.cit.,p.317)ontherelationshipinAristotelianphilosophybetweentheparticularandthegeneral.‘Thesituationisasourceofillumination;theilluminationbecomesthesourceofanewgeneralaccount.’ Part2TheoryandPracticeintheClassroom 62 Chapter6DramaforMoralEducation:PotentialFeaturesandProblematicAspectsDrama,toquotethewordsofRaymondWilliamsagain,moves‘beyondmythtodramaticversionsofmyth’.Inproposingahistoricalrelationshipbetweendramaandmythwheredramainterrogates,revisesandrenewsthemoralvalueswithinthemyth,IanalysedWertenbaker’splayprincipallytoillustratehowthisrelationshipisstillvigorousincontemporarytheatreratherthantopropoundherparticularfeministvision.ItisevidentthatWertenbakerseesthattheformofdramaisascrucialtoitsmoralpurposeasisitscontentandthatthisformshouldaimtoempowerratherthantoindulgeitsaudienceemotionally.Iwillnowarguethat,iffairystoriesaretoundergoasimilarprocessofmoralexplorationintheclassroom,thentheformofdramaweuseforthispurposeiscrucialtotheproject;andthatthisformshouldbedialogicalinnature,harnessingtheperformativecharacterisiticsoftheoraltraditionfromwhichthetalesoriginatebutenhancingthemtobecomeparticipatoryinnature.Suchaformofdrama,infact,asexistswithinthecurrenttraditionsofdramaineducation.ThereisarichandcomplexhistorytoeducationaldramawithinBritain,spanningthelengthofthetwentiethcentury.Thishasbeenwell-documentedbyCox(1970)andRobinson(1981)andusefullycritiquedandsummarizedbyBolton(1984)andmorerecentlybyO’Hara(1996).FromearlypioneerssuchasHarrietFinlay-JohnsonandCaldwellCook,writersandpractitionerswithinthefield—PeterSlade,BrianWay,RichardCourtneyandJohnAllen,forexample—haveemphasizeddramaasapracticeandasaprocessforlearningratherthanasabodyoftextsforpassivereception.Thisapproach,ofcourse,sharesmuchincommonwiththechild-centred,progressivephilosophiesinspiredbythewritingsofRousseauandFroebel;butopinionsastowhatexactlyconstitutesthenatureoflearningthroughdramahavealwaysbeenfluidandopentoargument,ashaveanyspecificviewsonthemoralbenefitsofdramaforchildren.InthecaseofPeterSlade,forexample,(1954)theformofChildDramawasinitselfasourceforgoodinanessentiallytherapeuticsense,characterizedasitwasbyintenseactivity,spontaneousplayandthequalitiesofAbsorptionandSincerity.1IssuesofcontentwerepracticallyirrelevantforSlade,whosawdramaticmeaningasinherentlysymbolicandprivatetothechildreninvolved. 64DRAMA,NARRATIVEANDMORALEDUCATIONThechildcreatestheatreinitsownway,ownform,ownkind.Itisoriginalartofhighcreativequality.Mostadultsarestubbornlyblindtothelovelinesstheywillnotsee.(op.cit.,p.183)Elsewherehewrites:Theconstantrepetitionsanduseofsymbolsintherealmofchildbehaviour,alsotheactingoutofsituationsbeforetheycanhavebeenexperienced,isentirelyinlinewiththeJungianconceptionofthecollectiveunconscious.(ibid,p.48)SuchlanguageandsentimentsarereminiscentofBettelheim,stressingastheydotheimportanceofthesubconscious,theautonomyandpreciousnessofachild’sexperience,andportrayingadultinterferenceasanunwelcomeintrusion.Slade’sinfluencewasconsiderablebutitsemphasisonformasopposedtocontentwasradicallychallengedinthe1970sbytheworkofDorothyHeathcote,arguablythemostinfluentialexponentofeducationaldramathiscentury.2LikeHarrietFinlay-Johnson,Heathcotewasinterestedprimarilyinhowdramacouldbeharnessedasalearningmediumforsubjectsacrossthecurriculumsuchashistoryandliterature;butunlikeherpredecessor,shewasnotinterestedinhowitcouldassistchildreninthelearningoffactssomuchashowitcouldfacilitateanunderstandingofwhatBoltoncalls‘theuniversalimplicationsofanyparticulartopic’(1984,p.52).Heathcote’sworkwascharacterizedbyanumberofrevolutionaryfeatures,mostprominentbeingheruseofteacher-in-role,astrategywhichenabledhertoinfluencethedramaticaction,andhencethechildren’slearning,fromwithin,asafellowparticipant.3Althoughherownwritingshavebeenfew,thoseofGavinBolton(1979,1984,1992)didmuchtospreadthephilosophyandpracticesofherparticularstyleofdrama,asdidthenumerousworkshopsanddemonstrationlessonstaughtbyherselfandBoltonthroughouttheUK,AustraliaandNorthAmerica.ItwasinNorthAmerica,witharticlesbyWolfe(1978)andColby(1982)thattheoreticalstudiesintotheareaofmoraleducationthroughdramabegantoadvocatethepracticesofBoltonandHeathcote.WolfefocuseddirectlyontheworkofKohlberg,suggestingthatsignificantmoraldilemmas,approachedthroughdrama,couldstimulatemoraldevelopmentaccordingtotheKohlbergtaxonomy.Colby—whoseworkconstitutesthemostthoroughandfocusedexaminationpublishedtodateofdrama’spotentialformorallearning—builtonWolfe’sideasbuttookthemfurther.EmbracingKohlberg’stheoryofmoralstages,Colby(1982)constructedanargumentwhichproposedthatdramaofthetypetaughtbyHeathcoteandBoltoncouldencouragemoralgrowthbypressingchildrenintoreasoningonestageabovetheircurrentlevel.HecitedunpublishedresearchbyJohnsonandBauer(Colby,ibid.,p.26)which,althoughfailingtoprovethatdramacouldachievesuchgrowth,neverthelessdrewconclusionswhichColbyfoundtobesignificant.WithdetailedreferencetotwoHeathcote-styledramas,Colbyarguedthat,whensuchdramasareclearlyfocusedonmoraldevelopmentalobjectives,significantgrowthinmoralreasoningbecomespossibleduetodrama’sabilitytoyoketherealmsoftheaffective,thevisualandthekinesthetictothemoralreasoningprocess.Heproposedthatthisstyleofdramaprovidedroomfor DRAMAFORMORALEDUCATION65rationalrefection,inlinewithKohlberg’sstagetheory,toworkalongsidetheemotionalethicofcareandresponsibilitydevelopedbyGilligan,whichcombinationcouldmovechildren’smoralreasoningupastage.4Inalaterarticle,Colby(1987)developedhisargumentfurther,concentratingonpublishedresearchwhichillustratedtheshortcomingsofdevelopmentalanalysisandclassroomroleplayswhenusedtoencouragemoralgrowth.HewasparticularlystruckbytheworkofOliverandBane(1971)andtheirargumentforteacherstorecognizetheimportanceofthosenon-rational,moralsensitivitieswhichremainunaddressedwhentheconcentrationisupontheprocessesofmoralreasoningalone.Theyassertedthatmoralcontroversyis:‘…morepowerfullydescribedthroughthemetaphorsofthedramatistwhichtranscendpubliclanguage’(OliverandBane,citedinColby,1987,p.73).ParticularlyinGilligan—butalsointhelaterKohlberg(1981)—Colbysawsupportforsuchabroaderandmoreambivalentunderstandingofmoraldevelopment.Thestrengthofdrama,Colbyconcluded,liesinitspotentialtoencouragechildrentothinkmetaphoricallyaswellasanalytically,andintheopportunitiesitoffersforchildrentoexperienceandreflectuponthe‘truthofmetaphor’.Itissignificant,Ithink,thatKohlberg’stheoryofmoralstagesandthepedagogyofdilemmaanalysisaremutedinthelaterarticle,indicatingashiftinColby’sperspectivetoonewhichmorecloselymatchestheargumentdevelopedinChapter2ofthisthesis.EvenifwerejecthisearliertheoreticaldependenceuponKohlberg,however,Colby’sworkremainslucidandinformativeandIrefertoitinfurtherdetailtohelpilluminatemyownpracticeinChapter8.ThispracticebelongstothetraditionfosteredbyHeathcoteandadvocatedbyColby,butinaformdeveloped,alteredanddisseminatedbyotherpractitionerssuchasCecilyO’Neill(1976,1982,1995),DavidBooth(1994)andJonothanNeelands(1984,1992).Thetermprocessdramaisusedcurrentlytodescribethistypeofeducational,improvisatorydrama,emphasizingitsconcernwithsignificant,dramaticlearningexperiencessoughtthroughthecreativeprocessesratherthanfromwithinreceivedanddistantdramaticproducts.ItsfeatureshavebeenusefullylistedbyTaylorasfollows:5•Separatescenicunitslinkedinanorganicmanner•Thematicexplorationratherthanisolatedorrandomskitorsketch•Ahappeningandanexperiencewhichdoesnotdependuponawrittenscript•Aconcernwithparticipants’changeinoutlook•Improvisationalactivity•Outcomesnotpredeterminedbutdiscoveredinprocess•Ascriptgeneratedthroughaction•TheleaderactivelyworkingbothwithinandoutsidethedramaThesecharacteristicsareindicativeofitsopen-ended,participatorynatureandwouldappeartobeideallysuitedtothecommunalstorybuildingwhichisintegraltothefieldworkofthisresearchproject.However,sincethelate1980s,thevalidityofthisformofeducationaldramahascomeundervociferousattackfromvariousacademictheoristswithinthefieldofdramaeducation.Theensuingdebatehasraisedimportantissuesabout 66DRAMA,NARRATIVEANDMORALEDUCATIONaestheticandculturalpracticesbeyondtheparametersofthisbook,butsomeoftheircriticismsarecentraltoitsconcernsandneedtobeaddressedbeforeproceedingfurther.ForemostamongthesecriticsisDavidHornbrook.Hisinfluentialbook,EducationandDramaticArt(1989)isastrong,oftenvitriolicattackdirectedagainsttheepistemologicalclaimsmadebyHeathcote,Boltonandtheirfollowersforthetypeofdramatheypractice.Oneofhiskeycriticismsisthattheylocatelearningindramawithintheareaofpsychologyratherthanculture,havingastheirmajoraimtheapprehensionofcertainabsolutesoruniversals,which,onanalysis,turnouttobenothingmorethanbland,liberalhumanistplatitudes.ThusGavinBolton’slistoftheuniversalsrevealedthroughdrama—‘protectingone’sfamily,journeyinghome,facingdeath,recordingforposterity,passingonwisdom,makingtoolsetc’(citedinHornbrook,1989,p.66)—arequotedonlytobesubjectedtoridicule.6Significantly,HornbrookpointsdisparaginglytoHeathcote’spredilectionfor‘primitivism’inmanyofherdramas,wherestudentsarerequestedto‘playouttheinter-culturaldilemmasoftribalcommunities’.Hegoesontocomment:Underlyingthissimple,noblesavageviewofprimitivesocietiesarethephenomologicalassumptions…thattherearecertainrealities,oressences,whichformthecommonfeaturesofallhumanconsciousness.(ibid.,p.66)Hornbrookrejectsthisuniversalistviewoftheselfandfavoursaneducationindramaticart,bywhichhemeans,ineffect,thetraditionalculturalpracticesofthewesterntheatre.Heathcote’sformofdrama,heargues,hasdislocateddramafromitsrootswithintheartsand,throughthis,fromitsculturalhistoryandmoralandpoliticalpurposes.Theresultheseesisamoralvacuum:(an)existentialandnarcissisticwildernessinwhichwecircleinsearchoftruth,valueandmeaningbutinwhichalltheso-calledsociallearningofthedramaclass,howeverconscientiouslyengineered,mustintheendbecondemnedtowanderaimlessly.(ibid.,p.67)Onlythroughare-engagementwiththehistorical,performancepracticesofdramaandthepoliticalandsocialmeaningswithinourheritageofplaytextsdoesHornbrookbelievethatdramacanleavethiswildernessandre-entertheworldofcollective,criticaljudgment.AnearliercriticofHeathcotewas,infact,aMarxistpractitionerfromwithinthistheatricaltradition.NicholasWright(1980)sawherpreoccupationwith‘droppingfromtheparticularintotheuniversal’asindirectoppositiontothenatureandpurposeoftheatre.Theargumentoftheplayisnotideal;itmightbetrueonlyinthespecificsetofsocial,economicandculturalcircumstancesrevealedandimpliedintheplay….Itis,ifyoulike,particular.Butitisnotuniversal.(Robinson(Ed),1980,p.104) DRAMAFORMORALEDUCATION67ThedangerhesawinHeathcote’spracticewas:thetemptationofinventingpseudo-facts,statementsgenerallyofamoralnature,which,thoughmeremattersofopinion,productsofaparticularideologicalcontext,arepresentedasthoughtheywereofabsoluteandpermanentvalue.(ibid.,p.100)ForWright,Heathcote’suniversaltruthsareneithertruenoruniversal.HisMarxistcritiqueofherpractice,equatingthemoralwiththepolitical,foreshadowedthatofHornbrookandraisedsquarelytheproblemofvaluehegemonywithinthepersonandpowerofthedramateacher:‘Atwhatpointmay(thestudent)decidethatwhatisuniversal,say,fortheteacherisnotuniversalforhim?’(ibid,p.102).Theseconcernshavefoundanechointhefeministvoiceswhichhaverecentlyraisedsomepertinentquestionsconcerningtheaimsandpracticesofprocessdrama(seealsoFletcher,1995).HelenNicholsonhaschallengedHeathcote’sbeliefinuniversaltruthsandinanessentialist,authenticself,arguingthat:‘thenotionofuniversalityisexclusive,andrevealsthroughdeconstruction,thedominantconcernsofahegemonicculture’(1995,p.28).ShehasattackedthesameuniversalslistedbyBoltonandcriticizedbyHornbrookfortheirphallocentricpreoccupationsandhasqueriedBolton’sdescriptionofthe‘essentialgoalindramateaching’,namelythatthecentrallearning…involvessomekindofchangeinsubjectivemeaning,achangeinfeltvalue…Myquestionisconcernedwithwhosevaluesarethey?andwhyaretheybetterthanthestudents’own?Hereweseeinoperationthewill-to-powerofthepractitioner,whohaseliminateddiversityinfavouroftheperceivedrationalityorwisdomofhisorherownmoralcode.(Bolton,citedbyNicholson,ibid.,p.31)Attheheartofthesecriticismsthereisasharedmistrustofhegemonicvaluesmasqueradingasuniversaltruths.TheobjectionstoHeathcote’sprimitivismandtoherbeliefthatdramaisultimatelyconcernedwithuniversalsemanatesfromthismistrust.Suchconcernshavebeenpre-eminentthroughoutthisstudyandechomyownwithinthefieldsofmoraltheory,theoriesofmeaningintraditionalstoriesandtherelationshipbetweenmythanddrama.Toputforwardprocessdramaastheformabletodealwithpreciselywhatithasbeenaccusedoffosteringmightthereforeappearatbestmisguided,atworstperverse.Sotowhatextentarethesecriticismsvalid?AcursorylookattheliteratureonorbyHeathcotesupportstosomeextenttheviewpropoundedbyHornbrookregardingherfascinationforprimitivism.Whetherinatombdramawith12year-oldsorinadramabasedontheHawaiiangoddessPele,Heathcotewasevidentlytakennotonlywithprimitivismbut,moreespecially,withthespringboarditpresentedtoexploretheconceptofmythasabearerofaspecialkindoftruth.7InheressayDramaandtheMentallyHandicapped,shewrites: 68DRAMA,NARRATIVEANDMORALEDUCATIONIhaveevidenceofsomeratherearth-shatteringexplorationswhichseemalmostJungianintheirmanifestation.Asifmythweretappedanduniversalsperceivedduringtheaction.(JohnsonandO’Neill,1984,p.150)HerbeliefintherelationshipbetweenmythanduniversaltruthissimilartothatexpressedbyJosephCampbellandMirceaEliade,whobelievedthatthepurposeofallmythwastore-establishthe‘creativeera’:…magical,inasense,sincebyreconstitutingthateraonecanrevivesomeofitsunique,creativepower.(Kirk,1974,p.63)InflirtingwithsuchsentimentHeathcotewasindangerofinvestingtheformofmythwithaspecialkindofmysticaltruth,whichcouldservebothtomystifythenatureoflearningthroughdramaand,mistakenly,toconflatedramawithmyth.Forexample,inanessayentitledDramaasChallengeshewrites:WhentheGreeksonthehillsideswatchedthestoriestheyknew,‘livedthrough’,yetagain,whoknowswhatstrengthwasgiventothembythisre-acquaintancewiththeirmyths?(JohnsonandO’Neill,1984,p.83)ThequotefromWilliamswhichopenedthischapterremindsusthateachdramatizationofamythchangeditsmoralandpoliticalsignificanceandeffectivelycontextualizedit,politicallyandhistorically,henceopeningituptoargument.NeitherAeschylus,SophoclesnorEuripidesregardedthemythsasmysticalsourcesofstrengthforthepopulationofAthensbutusedthemtoconveyparticularmeaningsrelevanttothesocietyofthetime.WhattheGreeksgainedfromareacquaintancewiththeirmythsisaquestionmorefruitfullyapproachedbycriticalandhistoricalanalysisratherthanmerewonder.Weknow,forexample,thatinTheTrojanWomenEuripideswasusingthemythtoexposethepoliticalandmoralhypocrisyofthoseconductingthewarwithSparta,usingtheGreeks’treatmentofthevanquishedwomenofTroyasadirectanalogyforthebrutaltreatmentmetedouttotheinhabitantsofMelosforhavingrefusedtosidewithAthens.Hisdramaticintentionwastomoveawayfromtheunchangingremotenessofmythintotheparticularityofhistory,notvice-versa,andisaclearillustrationofNicholasWright’sproposition.CriticismsofHeathcote,inthisrespectatleast,maybeseenasvalid;andthereisnodoubtthatherperspectiveonprimitivismandmythhashadsomeinfluenceontheworkofsubsequentpractitioners.8However,HornbrookappearstoconflatetheworkofHeathcoteandBoltonwithallpracticeinthefieldofdramaineducation;forhehasinhissightsnotonlytheseinfluentialpractitionersbuttheveryformofprocessdramaitself(Hornbrook,1995).Nicholson,too,extendshercriticismtootherprominentpractitionersofprocessdramaandpostulatesanalternativemodelforthedramacurriculumwhichbuildsuponHornbrook’sdefinitionofdramaticart(Nicholson,1995,p.35).Paradoxically,whilecriticizingessentialistandexclusivepractices,sheexpoundsaviewofdrama-in-educationwhichcouldinitselfbeseenasessentialistinnatureand, DRAMAFORMORALEDUCATION69whilstexhortingthenecessitytoembracedifferenceanddiversitywithinourpractice,shevoicesnorecognitionofthedifferencesthatexistbetweentheaimsandvaluesofparticularpractitionersofprocessdrama.9ItisasifallGreekdramatistsweretobeequatedwithAeschylus.Inordertorespondtothecritics,thecentralquestionsthatneedtobeaddressedwithintheparametersofthisbookaretodowithwhether,asapractitionerofprocessdrama,Iamnecessarilycondemnedtomythicprimitivismwhenworkingwithmythicstories;toamisguidedquestforuniversaltruthswhenworkingwithinthefieldofmoraleducation;andtobealwaysanunwittingagentofhegemonywithinthefieldofvalues.Thefirsttwoquestionsaremucheasiertodismissthanthethird.Myownapproachtoanduseofmythindramalessonsisself-evidentlyverydifferentfromthoseattackedbyHornbrook.Myth,forme,isnotadramaticformtoharnessforthepurposesofprimitivismorspiritualenlightenment;itisastoryfromwhichtobeginadrama.TouseCecilyO’Neill’sterm,itisapre-textfordrama,whichoperates:‘byframingtheparticipantseffectivelyandeconomicallyinafirmrelationshiptothepotentialaction’(O’Neill,op.cit.,p.22).Thispotentialactionisstronglycontextualizedandmadeparticularthroughroleandframe.TheuseofmythicstoriescataloguedintheworkofDavidBoothandO’Neillherselfgiveampleevidenceofhowthiscanbedone.Furthermore,itisagainquiteclearfromtheliteratureonprocessdramathat,forquitesometime,universaltruthshavenotbeenontheagenda.ForHeathcote,theseuniversalswerenot,infact,moralabsolutesbutcommonhumanexperiences,emotionslinkedtoexamplesofwhentheyaretypicallyfelt.Indeed,herpracticeasdescribedinWagner(1979)illustrateshowableshewasatproblematizingmoralassumptions.DespiteHornbrook’saccusations,thesearchforuniversalsdoesnotpreoccupytherecentworkofO’Neill(1995),Booth(1995)orNeelands(1994,1995).AsItrustmycasestudieswillillustrate,itisquitepossibletoworkthroughprocessdramainordertodwellwithinandexploretheparticularityofasituationjustasitispossibletowritestoriesorpoemswhichmayormaynotaspiredirectlytotheuniversal.Iftheparticularsituationisreflectedupontoseekanalogiesormakeevaluations,thisisnotthesameas‘droppingintotheuniversal’.AsIhavepreviouslyargued,particularityisnotthesemanticequivalentofuniqueandageneralizationneednotaspiretotheuniversal.Furthermore,ifallgeneralizationsarenecessarilyinfluencedbythedominantconcernsofahegemonicculture,thenthismustbethecaseforthosewhocritiquethiscultureaswellasthosewhoaresupposedlydupedbyit.Toframeourargumentsinthiswayistofallvictimtothefruitlesscircularityofassertionandcounter-assertionwhichMacIntyreseesassoharmfultocontemporarymoraldebate.Nevertheless,thequestionofhowvaluesandideologyshapeourteaching,whetherindramaorinanyotheracademicdiscipline,isadifficultonetonegotiate.Itisimportanttoadmitthat,withintheconventionsofprocessdrama,andparticularlythroughtheuseofteacherinrole,teachershavetheoptiontooperatefromwithinthedrama,whichprovidesthemwithagreatopportunitytomanipulateitsvalueagendainwaysthattheymaybeonlypartiallyawareof.Furthermore,theliteratureofdrama-in-educationdoescontainsomedubiousclaimsmadebypractitionersabouttheefficacyoftheirdramasforbringingaboutchangeinchildren’svalues.AbriefanalysisofarecentarticlebyBrianEdmiston 70DRAMA,NARRATIVEANDMORALEDUCATION(1995),Ibelieve,canusefullyillustratebothofthesedangers,thussheddingsomelightontheproblematicnaturenotonlyofmoraleducationthroughprocessdramabutalsothedifficultiesofevaluatingone’sownpracticeinthefield.Edmistonisapractitionerofprocessdramawhohasanumberofarticlespublishedinacademicjournalsandachapterinabookonresearchindramaeducation.Hisworkisofparticularrelevancetomyowninterestsasitconsistslargelyofreflectiveaccountsofhisownpracticeandisoftenconcernedwithmoraleducationthroughdrama.Infact,heisoneoftheveryfewpractitionerresearcherstohaveattemptedacomprehensivetheoryforunderstandingthemoraldimensionsofprocessdrama,drawingspecificallyuponBakhtin’stheoryofdialogismtosuggestamodelfordevelopingsuchunderstandings.However,problemsoccurinthewayherelatesthistheorytohisownpracticeandintheclaimshemakesforadramareferredtoastheSpaceTradersDrama,whichhadasitseducationalagendathethemeofprejudice.Inhisinitialcontactwithaclassof13year-olds,Edmistoninformsusthathedetectedwidespreadprejudiceagainstpeopleonwelfareandthisledhimtoadaptastoryfordramawhich,ineffect,wasintendedtochallengeandchangethechildren’sattitudes.ThedramaevolvedaroundafuturisticscenarioinwhichaliensvisitanAmericaonthevergeofbankruptcyandofferthegovernmentallthegoldtheyneedinexchangeforallAmericansinreceiptofwelfare.Bytheendofthedrama,Edmistonbelievesthatchildrenwhohadpreviouslybeendismissingthoseonwelfareaslazyandworthlesshavechangedtheirattitudesandthisheputsdowntothewaythedramahelpedthechildrendialogizetheirexperience.Bythishemeansthat,builtintothestructureofthework,therewereopportunitiesforthechildrentolistento,evaluateandinternalizeavarietyofperspectiveswhichledthemtorevisetheirinitialethicalstandpoints.Heconcludes:AsadramateacherIhavecometorecognizetheawe-fulpowerwhichwehavetoenterintodeepandsignificantconversationswithstudentswhichchangethewaystheyviewtheworldandtheirselves.(ibid.,p.123)IperceiveseveralproblemswithEdmiston’soverallargument.Firstofall,thegeneralizedclaimshemakesfortheclass’schangeofattitudearebackedupbyreferencetowrittenandspokenevidencetakenfromonlytwoorthreepupils.Assuch,theseclaimsfailtoconvince.Normustthechildren’schangedattitudesnecessarilybeinterpretedinthewaysEdmistonsuggests.Forexample,inhisconclusion,hedecribeshowtheclassteacheraskedthechildrentowriteaboutwhethertherehadbeenanythingfairorunfairwithinthedrama.Onegirl,Jenny,whohadpreviouslyarguedthatifpeopleonwelfarewereunemployedthenitwastheirownfault,nowwrotewithfarmoresensitivityandcompassion.‘Youcan’tputapriceonsomeone’slife….Maybetheycouldn’thelpnotgettingajob.Wewereallbeingtooselfish’(ibid.,p.123).EdmistonarguesthatthischangeofheartcameaboutduetoJenny’sownworkwithinthedrama.‘Inthedramawork’,hewrites,‘Jennyhadnotonlyconstructedethicalpositions,shecritiquedthem’.Thereisasimplerinterpretation,however.Childrencanbeveryadeptatdetectingwhatitisthattheteacherwantstohearandthesociallywell-adjustedamongthemareoftenhappytorespondaccordingly.Itisdifficulttoseetheteacherbeingsatisfiedwithsucha DRAMAFORMORALEDUCATION71dramawithoutsolicitingandconsequentlyfindingresponsessuchasthisfromsensitivechildrenwhomightsoongraspthemessageofthedramawithouthavingtoconstructandcritiquetheirownethicalpositionswithinit.Fromthearticle,wehavenoindicationastohow,exactly,thefinalwritingsessionwasintroducedbytheteacher,whethertherewere,forexample,anyleadingquestionsornuancesofexpressionwhichmighthavefurtherindicatedtothechildrenthetypeofwrittenresponsewhichwouldearnhispraise.Fortheteacher’svalueagendaiscrucialhere.Itisclearthatthisdramahadanoverarchingintention,toachieveaspecificandpredeterminedchangeofunderstandingwhichtheteachersawasmorallydesirable.Thisessentiallymonologicalapproachisatoddswithhisdialogicalintentions.AndBakhtinhimselfwasawareofthistendencyindrama,seeingitasamonologicalartform,ananomalywhichEdmistonfailstoengagewith(Pechey,1989,pp.57–62).ThereisthereforesomethingofatheoreticalmuddleinEdmiston’sposition,oratbestaparadoxatitsheart.Hepresentshisownethicalunderstandingsasinnoneedofthekindofdialogicalcritiquehehasurgeduponthechildren’s.Althoughadvocating,withBakhtin,that‘eachperson,adultorchild,hasauniqueperspectiveontheworldandoneveryinteraction’(ibid.,p.116)hehasdevisedadramainwhichonlyoneperspectiveisethicallytenable;namely,theonehehasdecideduponinadvance.10AlthoughIhaveproposedthatEdmiston’sintentionwastochangechildren’sattitudes,hisstatedagendawasmoreopen-ended,namely‘toenablethemtoexploresuchethicalconcernsasjustice,fairness,prejudiceandtolerance’(ibid.,p.114).Elsewherehestatesthatprocessdramacan‘enablestudentstocreatetheirownethicalunderstandingsaboutissuesofimportancetothem’(ibid.,p.115).Thewarm,child-centredlanguageofenablementandexploration,togetherwithverbssuchasconstructandcritiquealsousedintheopeningsentences,suggestanopen-endedteachingagendawhichplacestheemphasisonthestudents’autonomy.YetallthespecificexamplesfromthedramawhichEdmistonreferstosuggestamorepreciseandclosedagenda,namelythatofradicallychangingtheirperspectives,notablyfromprejudicedtounprejudiced.11Thisishintedatinhisunderstandingoftheadvantagesofdialogicasopposedtomonologicthinking:Ifweresistdialoguethenwetendtominimizeoursenseofresponsibilityandossifyourthinking.Ourmoralitybecomesmore‘monologic’,static,fixedandjudgmentalratherthandynamicandopentochange.(ibid.,p.117)Theproblemhereistwofold;thereappearstobeacontradictionbetweenEdmiston’sstatedandactualintentions;andtheconceptof‘changeinunderstanding’asradicalandobservable,whichheadvocatesthroughhisdeedsasopposedtoinhiswords,isopentochallenge.Edmistonis,notsurprisingly,mostpleasedwiththosechildrenwhomheinterpretsashavingchangedfromonestateofmind(prejudiced)toanother(unprejudiced).Butthereismorethanahintinthisarticlethatchangeperseismorallymoredesirablethanresistancetochange,whereastheobversemightwellbetruein,say,adramasetin1930sGermany,whereadoctorwasbeingpressurisedtonolongertreataJewishpatient.Moreover,‘changeinunderstanding’neednotmeancomingtoadifferentpositionbutcouldinvolvethedeepeningofanexistingposition.Itmighttaketheformof 72DRAMA,NARRATIVEANDMORALEDUCATIONadeepeningofcompassion,orofadeepeningofone’scommitmenttoegalitarianismwhichhadrecentlybeguntowaver.IhavecritiquedEdmiston’sarticleatsomelengthnotasanattackuponthesubstanceofthedramanorupontheaimsoftheteacherbutinordertoshowthatthescepticismofcriticssuchasHornbrookandNicholsonwithintheareaofvaluesandprocessdramadoeshavesomejustificationinobservablepractice;andtoillustratesomeofthedangerswhichneedtobenegotiatedbyaresearchprojectsuchasmine,similarasitistoEdmiston’s.Toillustratethedangersisnottobedefeatedbythem,however.AsIarguedinChapter5,valuesarebroughttodramalessonsbyteachersandstudentsandnoparticularvaluesareinherenttotheformofdramaitself.Asineveryclassroom,dramateachersareinapositionofauthority,whichmeanstheirvaluesmatter.Theychoosethestartingpointforthedramaandmakechoicesastowhatformlearningthroughdramawilltake.Eventhemostprogressivewillchoosehowthepre-textistobechosenandhowthedecisionswhichwillshapethedramaaretobemade,asclearanimpositionofavalueagendaasanyother.Thisisreallythepoint.Asateacher,itwouldbemisguided,evenirresponsibleofme,tosuggestthatmyvalueagendaiseitherasneutralorassignificantorinsignificantasthatofanyoneelseintheclassroom.However,ifweareconsciousandawareofourvalues;arewillingtobeopenaboutthemandjustifythem;and—mostimportantly—criticallyscrutinizetheminpractice,thenweapproachourteachingreflectively,maturelyandwithintellectualintegrity.Notes1Sladewroteasrecentlyas1993advocatingthemoralworthofthedramahepractisedwithdelinquentsinBirminghamduringthe1960s.‘Ibelievedchildrenoughttogothroughthecatharticspittingoutoffearsandexperiences,’hecommentedanddescribedhow‘wewouldsetthemjumpingfromrostrumblocktorostrumblocktothesoundofhotjazzand,whentheywereexhausted,wewoulddealwiththem’.2WritingsbyHeathcoteareincludedbyDrain(1995)alongsidethosebysucheminentpractitionersasBrecht,DarioFo,CraigandArtaud.3Forextensivetheoreticalanalysisofaspectsofteacherinrole,seeMorganN.andSaxtonJ.(1987),Chapter3.4ColbymakesbriefmentionhereoftheworkofCourtney(1980,pp.39–60)andMartinL.Hoffman(1976)whoseworkisworthalittlecloserexaminationwithinthecontextofthisstudy.Courtney’stheoryofDramaticAgeStages,drewheavilyuponPiaget,EriksonandKohlbergbutwasalsoinfluencedbyHoffman’slistof‘EmpathicStages’ofmoralgrowthintermswhich,althoughdissimilartothoseproposedbyGilligan,neverthelessstress,asshedid,theimportanceofconnectednessandsympathy.CourtneyseesinHoffman’sstagetheory‘thekernelelementsofdramaticgrowth’(ibid.,p.43)andwrites:‘moralgrowthhingesupontheabilitytoexperiencetheinnerstateofothers,andthisrelatesdirectlytoimpersonation’(ibid.,p.41).Hoffman’sstagetheorycanbecriticizedforthesamereasonsasthoseofKohlbergandErikson(seeChapter1)buthisdescriptionofthecharacteristicsofan‘EmpathicSympathy’stageresonatesinterestinglywiththeself-othercontinuumIarguedtobeatthecoreofmoralengagementthroughdramainChapter5.‘He(sic)canactoutinhis DRAMAFORMORALEDUCATION73ownmindtheemotionsandexperiencesofothers,whileallthetimemaintainingthattheotherisaseparatepersonfromhimself’(Courtney,op.cit.,p.43).5FromTaylor,P.(1995).ThetermprocessdramaisgenerallyattributedtoO’Neill.SeeO’Neill(1995)andalsoO’Toole,J.(1993).6Hornbrookcomments:Thissimpleprimitivismisalwaysmystifyingbecauseitdeniescontemporaryexperience.Howoften,Iwonder,dowemaketools?WouldavisittoaDIYhypermarketbecountedasa“universal”fortoday’syoungpeople?’(op.cit,p.175).7ForaccountsoftheEgyptiandramaseeWagner,1979,pp.206–208.FortheGoddessPeledrama,seeJohnsonandO’Neill(Eds),1984,p.91.PrimitivismwasalsoacharacteristicfeatureofmanyofBolton’sdramas.Boltonprovidesdetailsofoneexamplewhenagroupofchildrenwereplayingthemembersofaprimitivetribeandfoundtwosweatbandswhichbelongedtoboysabsentfromtheclass.Hedescribeshowtheywere‘…ceremoniouslycarriedbacktothecave…wesatroundthemand…decidingourfellowtribesmenhadmettheirdeaths,weburiedthebands’(quotedinO’Toole,1992,p.221).8InterestingexamplesofprimitivismpepperMorganN.,andSaxton,J.(1987).Hereistheirexampleofsymbolization:Theemptybowlinthecentreofthecirclesignifiesthehungerofthetribe.Andforoneitrepresentssufferingforherchildren;foranotheritrepresentshisfailureasaprovider;foranotheritrepresentstheangeroftheGods…’(p.5).9Iwouldagreewithherpropositionthat:’…differenceistobecelebratedandvalued,andoppressivecategorisationsaretobebinnedforeverasownershipofanegativewill-to-power’(1995,p.30).However,herargumentseemsgearedtoexcludepractitionersofprocessdrama.ItisalsoworthnotingthatthepracticeofHeathcoteandBoltonwasneverstaticandprimitivismwasonlyoneaspectofit.Intheirlatest,jointpublication,thereisnothingmythicorJungianaboutanyoftheworkanalysed.SeeHeathcoteD.andBoltonG.(1995).10SeeEdmiston(1994)foranexampleofadramainwhichheavoidsthisbynotapproachingitwithsuchapredeterminedagenda.11Forexample,heopenshisarticlewithtwosentencesutteredbythesameboy,oneatthebeginningofthedrama,onetowardsitsconclusion:‘Whatshouldwedowiththeprisoners?Shouldtheygooffinthespaceship?Itdoesn’tmatteriftheydie,they’reworthlessanyway.’‘I’vechangedmymind.Youcan’tdecideforpeople.Evenifweneedthemoneywecan’tmakethemgo—they’repeopletoo’(op.cit.,1995,p.114).ThisisasimilartransformationtoJenny’s.Afurtherproblem,ofcourse,ishowtoequatechildren’sutterancesinrolewiththeiractualbeliefs.Edmistonblursthisdistinction. 74 Chapter7ResearchingDramaintheClassroomThecasestudieswhichformthebulkofthesecondpartofthisbookexploreinpracticehowclassroomdramawithfairytalesaspre-textcanengagechildreninmoralprocessesandencouragethemtoexploreandarticulateethicalconcepts.Ihavetakenasmystartingpointthat,historically,oneoftheculturalfunctionsofdramainwesterncivilizationhasbeentoopenmoraldebatebypoblematizingacceptedsocialandmoralvaluesexpressedwithinasociety’ssharedmythology;andhavechosentofocusonmyownteachingtoexploretheissuesinvolved.However,inmycritiqueofEdmiston’saccount,Ifocuseduponissuesofvaluebias,indicativeofthedangersinherenttosuchreflexiveanalysesofone’sownpractice.Thereareotherresearchmodelsavailable,ofcourse,andmyreasonsforrejectingthemneedtobeexplored.Arecent,large-scaleprojectledbyJohnSomersofExeterUniversityisanexampleofresearchineducationaldramawhichhasconsciouslyadoptedprocedurestoensurevalue-neutralityandprovideobjectiveproofofitsfindings.Ittookasitsstartingpointtheimplicitbeliefofmanydramateachersthatlearningindramalessonscaneffectsubstantialchangeinchildren’ssocialandmoralattitudes.InSomers’words,theresearchattempted:…todiscoverwhetherexposuretoparticularcircumstancesexperiencedbystudentsindramaaffectstheirattitudestoissuesembeddedinthosecircumstances.(1996,p.109)ThisisapositionarguedbyEdmiston,ofcourse,but,significantly,Somersaddsthathisresearchreportiswritten:‘…intheknowledgethatthereislittlesupportingevidenceinthefieldthatwouldstanduptorigorousscrutinybypsychologistsorsociologists’(op.cit.,p.109).Onreadingthereport,thisqualificationcanbeseentohaveshapedtheentireprojectdesignfor,unlikeEdmiston’saccount,itseekstoprovideevidenceintheformofquantifiable,statisticaldataaswellasdocumentary,qualitativecomment.AdramaentitledSimon,atthecentreofthereport,exemplifiesthis.ItwasaimedatencouragingchildrentofeelgreaterempathyforchildrenwithDown’sSyndromebycreatingadrama,setinayouthclub,inwhichaboywithDown’sSyndromecalledSimonbecomesamember.1TheresearchwasundertakeninthirtyschoolsacrosstheUKandteacherswereaskedtoapplyasix-pointLickertscaletomeasurechildren’sattitudesasdemonstratedinaquestionnaireadministeredbeforeandafterthedrama;andtoapplyasocialdistancescale 76DRAMA,NARRATIVEANDMORALEDUCATIONtoquantifychildren’sattitudestowardsSimonatdifferentpointsinthedrama.Thesefigureswerecomputedandcomparedtotheattitudesofchildreninacontrolgroupwhodidthesametopicwithnodramainput.Somersclaimsthatthestatisticalevidencepointstosignificantlyincreasedattitudinalchangeinchildrenwhotookpartinthedramasessions.ItisevidentfromSomers’referenceaboveto‘rigorousscrutiny’thathehasplannedthisresearchpartlyinresponsetoperceivedshortcomingsinpersonalaccountsofpractice;andpartlyinresponsetothecurrentpoliticalclimateandtheresultantpressuresithasplaceduponeducationalistsandeducationalresearchers.Taylorhasrecentlydescribedthisclimateasaneraofneo-positivism,whichseekstoprovide‘thesecureframeworkuponwhichcurriculumactionmustflow’(1996,p.4).2Itisanera,asarguedintheintroduction,insearchofcertaintyandquantifiableresults,mistrustfulanddismissiveofthosewhowouldseeeducationascomplexandproblematicandcharacterizedbythelanguageoftesting,performanceindicatorsandmeasurableoutcomes.Somers’researchdesignisanimpressivelyrobustresponsetothecurrenteducationalclimateandisonewhichwouldhavebeensupportedbyTroyna(1994)whoarguedagainst‘soft’(i.e.reflective)researchpreciselybecauseitwillalwaysbemarginalizedinthecurrentpoliticalclimate.Butitisnonethelessaresponsewhichbringswithititsownproblems.ThereisatendencywithinpositivistresearchdesigntoconflateobjectivitywithmeasurementandtoequatebothwithTruth;toviewobjectivityasimpersonalandsubjectivityasonlypersonal.Yetthedistinctionbetweensubjectiveandobjectiveobservationsisasfalseadichotomyasthatbetweenemotionandcognition,examinedinChapter5.Amoreaccurateunderstandingofobjectivestatementswouldseethemasinterpersonal,wheretwoormoreobserversofthesameeventcometosimilarconclusions.Suchstatementsare,ofnecessity,interpretationsofevents,baseduponevidence,butstillopentodisagreementandmisunderstanding.Andunderlyingvaluepositionsinformsuchobservations,eveninthescientificworld,where,wemustremember,evidencepointedincontrovertiblytotheearthcirclingthesunformanycenturies.Ifscientistscan—anddo—disagreeovertheirinterpretationsofevidence,thismustbeevenmorethecasewithregardtothosewhowouldinvestigatethesocialandthemoralworld.AsGubaandLincolnhavepointedout,researchparadigms:…areallinventionsofthehumanmindandhencesubjecttohumanerror.Noconstructionisorcanbeincontrovertiblyright.(citedinTaylor,op.cit,p.18)Positivistresearchdesigndoesnotensurethetriumphofvalue-neutralityandobjectivity.AsBernsteinhasasserted,thereplacementofpoliticaltheorybyscientificempiricisminthesocialworldwouldonlyensurethat:…primaryquestionsaboutwhatmenarewouldnolongerbeseriouslyasked;instead,therewouldbetheuncriticalacceptanceofideologicalbiases.(1976,p.62) RESEARCHINGDRAMAINTHECLASSROOM77Oneofthedangers,then,inresearchersplayingbythecurrentrulesisthattheymaybeuncriticallyacceptingtheideologicalbiasesofthosewhohavemadetherules.Thevaluesarestilltherebuttheyareatbestobfuscatedandatworstdenied.3Positivistresearchmodelsdonot,then,removevaluesfromtheresearchequation.Furthermore,theyaspiretoamodernistvisionoftruth,onewhichis,perhaps,congruentwithaworldviewsuchaswefindinKohlberg’stheoriesofmoraldevelopmentbutnotwiththeperspectiveadoptedinthisstudy.4Asaresult,theywilltendtoconformtoanobjectivesmodelofrationalcurriculumplanning,describedbyElliottas:‘…guidedbyquiteclearandspecificstatementsofintendedlearningoutcomes,definedintermsofmeasurablechangesinstudentbehaviour’(1991,p.135).Iflocatedwithinsuchamodel,drama’seffectivenesswillbedeterminedbymeasurableandobjectiveperformanceindicators,evenwhenoperatingwithinthemostelusiveareasoflearning.However,inhispresentationofthismodelofcurriculumdesign,Stenhouse(1975)sawitsusesassituatedwithintheareasofskillsandinformationandnotwithinthoseofknowledgeandunderstanding.Heproposedthatthereare,infact,foureducationalprocesseswhichincludenotonlytrainingandinstructionbutalsoinitiationandinduc-tion.5Whileinitiationisconcernedwithsecuringcommitmentandconformitytocertainsocialnormsandvalues,oftenembodiedintheethosoftheschool,inductionisthemostelusiveand,inmanyways,themostcrucialprocess,foritisconcernedwithgivingaccesstoknowledge,definedbyStenhouseas‘astructuretosustaincreativethoughtandprovideframeworksforjudgment’.Hegoesontoadd:‘Educationasinductiontoknowledgeissuccessfultotheextentthatitmakesthebehaviouraloutcomesofthestudentsunpredictable’(op.cit.,p.85,author’semphasis).Stenhouse’sdistinctionsarebroadlysimilartothoseproposedbyEisner(1985),whodistinguishedbetweeninstructionalandexpressiveobjectives,theformerreferringtoskillsandcontent,thelattertoquestionsinneedofexplorationandissuestobeengagedwith.Expressiveobjectives,bytheirnature,cannotbespecifiedinadvance.BothSomersandEdmiston,insearchingtomeasurepredictableoutcomes,focustheirresearchattentionuponinstructionalobjectives,presentingdramaasameansoftrainingandinitiatingchildrenintocertainmoralattitudes.Somersmightjustifythisapproachbyarguingthathispurposeistoprovidedramateacherswithevidencetoarguetheircausewithpolicymakersoutsidethedramacommunity.Myownresearch,incontrast,focusesonauseofdramawithexpressiveobjectives,forthepurposesofinductionintomoralknowledge,henceaspiringtowhatStenhousesawascomplementarytotheobjectivescurriculummodel,namelytheprocessmodelThisrecognizesthat:…thekeyprocedures,conceptsandcriteriainanysubject—cause,form,experiment,tragedy—are,andareimportantpreciselybecausetheyare,problematicwithinthesubject.Theyarethefocusofspeculation,nottheobjectofmastery.(1975,p.85)Iwouldarguethatthethickconceptsthroughwhichwegraspandunderstandthevirtueswhichconstituteethicalbehaviour,andthemoraldilemmaswhichinevitablypermeatesociallife,formthesubstanceofmoralknowledgeinaprocesscurriculummodel.Here, 78DRAMA,NARRATIVEANDMORALEDUCATIONteacherswillnotsetouttomeasurewhetherattitudeshavebeenchangedortogaugewhetherchildrenhavebeenturnedintomorallybetterpeopleinarelativelystraightforwardcauseandeffectcontinuum.Theywillattempttoinductthemintoanunderstandingofthemorallife;touseStenhouse’swordsagain,theywillseektoprovidethemwithframeworksforjudgmentandstructurestosustaincreativethought.Consequently,myresearchfocusisdifferentfromthatofSomers.Itsetsouttoilluminatehowdramaengageschildreninsignificantmoralprocessesofthought,feelingandrepresentation.Technicalrationalorpositivistresearchproceduresareunsuitableforevaluatingorresearchingintosuchareaswhich,asStenhousepointsout,areproblematicbydefinitionandwhoseoutcomesarenecessarilyunpredictable;andyetitispreciselyintheseareaswherepracticaldeliberationisneeded,fortheyarewhatmakeeducationasocialpracticeratherthanatechnicalprocess.ThisviewofeducationasasocialpracticeiscentraltoSchön’sconceptofreflectivepractitionerresearch.Schönseeseveryday,professionalpracticeascharacterizedby‘messy,confusingproblemswhichdefytechnicalsolution’(1987,p.3)—theparadoxbeingthatwithinthisswamp,ashecallsit,lietheproblemsofgreatesthumanconcern.These‘indeterminatezonesofpractice’escapethecanonsoftechnicalrationalitybecausetheyarecharacterizedby‘uncertainty,uniquenessandvalueconflict’(ibid.,p.6).Goodpracticeinsuchafieldhasatitsheart‘acoreofartistry’:Artistryisanexerciseofintelligence,akindofknowing….Itisnotinherentlymysterious;itisrigorousinitsownterms;andwecanlearnagreatdealaboutitbycarefullystudyingtheperformanceofunusuallycompetentperformers.(ibid,p.13)Schön’svisionofpracticeasanarthasaparallelinEisner’smodelofeducationalconnoisseurship.Eisner(1985)seeseducationalpracticeasan‘inordinatelycomplicatedaffair,filledwithcontingenciesthatareextremelydifficulttopredict,letalonecontrol’.Hegoeson:‘Connoisseurshipineducation,asinotherareas,isthatartofperceptionthatmakestheappreciationofsuchcomplexitypossible’(1985,p.104).BothEisnerandSchönshifttheemphasisinresearchingeducationalpracticeawayfromthemeasurementofquantifiableoutcomesintoamoredetailed,qualitativeappreciationofthepractitioner’sart.AndSchönisveryclearthattheaudienceforsuchworkisideallyotherpractitioners,whocanlearnfromthepracticeoffellowprofessionalsthroughbecomingpartofadiscoursecommunity.Suchaconceptofeducationalpracticeiscongruentwiththeviewoflearningpresentedintheearlierchaptersofthisthesis,inasmuchasitisconsistentwithMacIntyre’sinterpretationoftheAristoteliantraditionandseesacentralroleforstorytellinginthedevelopmentanddisseminationofprofessionalknowledge.AccordingtoAristotle,therearetwoformsofrationality,techneandphronesis.Technicalrationalityistheformofreasoningappropriatetomakingproducts;practicaldeliberationorphronesisistheformofreasoningappropriatetodoingsomethingwell.(Elliott,1991,p.138) RESEARCHINGDRAMAINTHECLASSROOM79Socialpracticesaremadeupofskillsbutarealwaysmorethananaggregateofthoseskillsastheyneedtohaveregardtoendsandvalueswhichdefinethosepracticesanddevelopphronesis,whichCarrtranslatesas‘practicalwisdom’(1987,p.171).Thevirtuesaredefinableasgoodsinternaltoparticularpracticesandaredistinguishablefromexternalgoods—suchaswealthorgoodhealth—astheybenefitcommunitiesofpractitionersratherthanindividuals.Thereisadangerwheneducationandeducationalresearchareunderstoodintechnicaltermsonly,inthatthoseethicalissuesorunderlyingvalues,centraltotheconcernsofapractice,becomediscountedorignored.AsCarrexpressesit:Withoutpracticalwisdom,deliberationdegeneratesintoanintellectualexercise,and‘goodpractice’becomesindistinguishablefrominstrumentalcleverness.Themanwholacksphronesismaybetechnicallyaccountablebuthecanneverbemorallyanswerable.(1987,p.172)Thefactthat,asteachers,wearemorallyanswerableforwhatwedoimpliesthatweareliabletobecalledtoaccount,whichmeansweshouldbepreparedtogiveanaccountoftheactionswehavetaken.SuchaccountsasIrefertoherearethosewerendertoourfellowpractitionerswhoarebestplacedtocriticallyevaluatethem.Theyare,firstandforemoststoriesandtheyareprofoundlyethicalintheirconcerns.6TheCaseforCaseStudyIhavearguedthat,intheabsenceofgrandtheory,storiesaffordusourbestholdonthemorallife,chartingastheydothevicissitudesofhumanintentionsandactions,contextualizedinculturallyandsociallyspecificsituations.Thesameholdstrueofeducationalpractice,forreasonswhicharelargelysimilarandthishasbeenevidencedbytherecentgrowthofinterestinethnographicresearchandcasestudythroughoutthehumansciences.AtthecuttingedgehasbeentheworkofCliffordGeertzwithinthefieldofanthropology.Hearguesthatwetakeanthropologistsseriouslynotbecauseofthefactstheyproducebutwhentheymanagetoconvinceus‘ofhaving,inonewayoranother,truly“beenthere”’(1988,p.4).CitingFoucault’sWhatisanAuthor?hepointsoutthatthewritingsofanethnographeroranthropologisthavemoreincommonwithliterarythanscientificdiscourse,withtheauthor-functiondescribedbyFoucault(ibid.,p.7).Inanearlierwork,heusesthephrase‘thickdescription’tocharacterizethehermeneuticart,whichaimstodescribeandexplainthemeaningandsignificanceofactionsandbehaviourastheyoccur‘inaculturalnetworksaturatedwithmeanings’(Eisner,op.cit.,p.112).Recognizingashedoestheimportanceofwritingwell,‘wheregivingreasonsforpeople’sactionsisthesamethingasdescribingthemmorefullyandmorevividly’(Inglis,1993,p.164).Geertz’sownworkprovidesamodelfortheliterary,narrativecasestudywhosepurposeistoconstructanaccurate,convincingpictureofsocialreality.Casestudieshavetraditionallybeeninuseinsuchdisciplinesasanthropology,sociologyororganizationalbehaviourandonlymorerecentlywithinthefieldofeducation.AdelmanandJenkins(1976)definecasestudyas:‘anumbrellatermfora 80DRAMA,NARRATIVEANDMORALEDUCATIONfamilyofresearchmethodshavingincommonthedecisiontofocusaninquiryaroundaninstanceofaction’(p.140).KennyandGrotelueschen(1984)seethemtypicallyas:intensiveinvestigationsofsinglecaseswhichservebothtoidentifyanddescribebasicphenomena,aswellasprovidethebasisforsubsequenttheorydevelopment.(p.37)Thesepointsareimportant.Casestudiesarestories—contextualized,singleinstances—buttheyarefocusedandrigorousandareintendedtocontributetowardtheory.Importantly,theygeneratetheorythatisgroundedinpractice7buttheresearchmethodologiestheyemployandtheshapetheresearchcantakearenotrigidlydefined.Likethecasestheyinquireinto,casestudiesthemselves,intheirdesignandintheirconclusions,areproblematic.Truth,withacapitalT,ormeasurablecertainty,arenottheirobjectivesbutilluminationandabroadeningofunderstandingmostcertainlyare.InthewordsofEisner:‘TheirgeneralizingqualitiesarenotsomuchlocatedinTruthasintheirabilitytorefineperceptionandtodeepenconversation’(1991,p.205).Suchistheaimofthisresearch,howeverproblematicandvalue-ladenitsareaofinvestigationandthemethodologythroughwhichtheinquirywasconductedmighthavebeen.ItistoananalysisofthismethodologythatInowturn.Thefieldworkwasconductedwiththreeoverriding,practicalconcerns.Firstly,itembracedtheprincipleofopenness.InCarroll’swords,thismeans:‘thereisnorestrictionthatcan…directtheresearchintopredeterminedgoalsorpathsofaction’(1996,p.78).AlthoughIhadaclearoverallresearchfocus,IwasnotsettingouttoprovebuttoexploreandIneverknewwhattheexactfocusofeachcasestudywouldbeuntilthedatawasbeinganalysed.AsLevi-Strausswrote:‘Explorationisnotsomuchamatterofcoveringgroundasofdiggingbeneaththesurface’(citedinGeertz,1988,p.43).Secondly,Iwishedtoworkasfaraspossibleunderthesameconstraintsofcurriculum,timeandspaceasfacedtheclassteacherswithwhomIwasworkingintheireveryday,professionallives.ThisIsawasimportantiftheworkisevertospeakdirectlytoprimaryschoolteachers.ItwouldalsoactasasoberremindertomyselfoftherealitiesofclassroomlifefacedbythestudentswhomIteach,apointwhichleadsontomythirdoverridingconcern.Ineededtoensurethattheresearchsupplementedandenrichedmyown,everydayprofessionalpracticeanddidnotbecometoomuchofanadditionalburdentoit.Thiswasmeanttoaidthecrystallizationofmyownunderstandingofthefieldworkasmuchasitwasintendedasanecessarycopingstrategy.Therewerefivestagestothefieldwork,namely•selectingthetalesandthefocusforthedramas•selectingtheschoolsandtheclasseswithwhomIwouldwork8•teachingthelessonsandgatheringthedata•analysingthedata•presentingthefindings RESEARCHINGDRAMAINTHECLASSROOM81Thecasestudieswerenotconstruedasanactionresearchcycle;inotherwords,thefindingsofonewerenotintendedtoinfluencethedesignofanother.Consequently,theysometimesoverlappedand,althoughtheyeachwentthroughthefivelistedstagesinwayswhichwerebroadlysimilar,theyprogressedatdifferentratesandwereopenandresponsivetodifferentinfluencesateachstage,inparticularfrommyreadingormyprofessionalconversationswithcolleagues.SelectingtheTalesandtheFocusfortheDramasMyinitialthoughtwastoconcentrateononesource,eithertalesfromtheHinduortheBritishtradition,butIeventuallydismissedthisasanartificialconstraint,untypicalofhowIwouldactasaclassteacherandonewhichwouldquiteprobablylimittheproblemsIcouldexplorethroughdrama.Intheend,Idecidedtoworkwithfivetalesfromavarietyofculturalsources,eachofwhichappealedtomeasateacherwhilesuggestingadifferentmoralfocusforchildrenofdifferentageranges.Ihavedrawnfromtheentireexperienceofthisworkbuthaveusedthesequenceoflessonswithjustthreeofthetalestoanalyseinconsiderabledetailandprovidethebasisfortheensuingcasestudies.‘JackandtheBeanstalk’(Years1and2)Thiswasthefocusofahalf-termtopicchosenbyateacherwithwhomIhadworkedbefore.IwasdrawnbythemorallyambiguousfigureofJack,theevidentdidacticisminsomeofitsmanyversionsandthepotentialtoexploreconceptssuchaspromise-keeping,stealing,obedience,loyaltyandbullying.Intheend,itwasthecomicelementsofthedramawhichmostfascinatedmeanduponwhichIdecidedtoconcentratemyanalysis.‘TheBrahmin,theThiefandtheOgre’(Years3and4)AHindutale,originallyfromthePanchatantrabut,intheversionIused,adaptedforchildrentotakeonaformsimilartotheVictorianfairytale.Thiswasanotherstorywithastrident,moralistictoneanditofferedpotentialtoexploretheroleofviolenceinsuchtales.ThedramasessionsIevaluatedasreasonablysuccessfulbutinnowayoutstandingandIchosetoanalysethemforthisveryreason.‘TheStarMaiden’(Year5)OriginallyatalefromtheOjibwaypeopleofNorthAmerica,andrelatedbyBarbaraJusterEsbensen.Iwasattractedbythepoetry,thesymbolismandthemoralforceofitsenvironmentalmessage.However,IwasawareofitsrepresentationoftheNativeAmericanas‘NobleSavage’andIwasinterestedinhowdramamightbothdeepenchildren’sresponsestothestoryandofferadifferentrepresentationofNativeAmericanpeople.Thedramaleftmewithmoreambivalentfeelingsthananyoftheothers,feelingswhichIhopedtheanalysiswouldclarify. 82DRAMA,NARRATIVEANDMORALEDUCATIONSelectingSchoolsandClassesIdecidedtoworkwithchildrenfromavarietyoflocalprimaryschoolswhohadlittleornoexperienceineducationaldrama.This,Ihoped,wouldhelpinformmyunderstandingoftheexperiencesfacedbymostofthestudentswhomIteachandmostoftheteacherstowhomIprovideIn-Servicecourses.Itwasmyhunch,too,baseduponprofessionalexperience,thataskilfuluseofteacherinroleandacarefulselectionofdramaticconventionswouldenableyoungchildren,inexperiencedindrama,toexploremoralissuessuccessfullywithintheartform.AsColbycommented:if…skillsareperceivedasnecessarypre-requisitesfordrama,thenstudentsareindangerofbecoming‘exercisedaway’frommeaningfulengagementindrama.Childrenlearntobebetterswimmersinthewater,notbypractisingtheirstrokesondryland.(1982,p.22)Iinitiallyintendedtoworkthrougheachstorywithtwocontrastingclassesofchildrenandtousebothassourcesforevidence.However,althoughthisworkedwellforthestoryoftheBrahmin,withtheothertalesitquicklybecameclearthatIhadsufficientmaterialforanalysisafterworkwithjustoneclass.Ofthefourclasseswhoseworkisanalysedinthethreecasestudies,twowerefromvillageschoolsandtwofromschoolsinalarge,industrializedcity.Allwerestate-fundedbuttwohadreligiousaffiliations,onebeingChurchofEnglandandoneRomanCatholic.Oneoftheclasseswhoseworkisnotanalysedherewasmadeupof50percentMoslemandHinduchildren.Intheevent,raceandmulticulturalismdidnotbecomeethnographicfocalpointsforthethreestudieshere,butthesocio-culturalandreligiouscontextsofeachschooldidinformtheanalyses.TeachingtheLessonsandGatheringEvidenceGiventhatIwishedtoworkunderthesameconditionsasclassteachers,andthatIhadtofitinwiththeirown,densely-packedtime-tables,nosessionwasevermuchlongerthananhourinlength;halltimewaslimitedandthespacewaspronetobeusedbychildrenorstaffasacorridor;individualchildrenwereoccasionallyextractedorarrivedlatefromspecialsupportorindividualtuition;childrenwhowereabsentoneweekwerepresentthenextorvice-versa;andworkintheclassroomwasoftenlimitedbyrestrictedspace.Theimportantpointforme,however,wasthattheworkreflectedthesocialrealityoftheeverydayprimaryschoolclassroomforteacherscopingwiththepressuresoftheNationalCurriculum.Gatheringevidencewasthemostproblematicofallareasofthefieldworkbuttheuncertaintywasanecessaryfeatureofaprojectwherethefocusofeachstudywouldbeemergentratherthanpredetermined.Giventhattheattentionwould,however,alwaysbeonthelessonsthemselves,uponwhattheteacherandthechildrendidwithinthem,IwasabletolimitwhatIgatheredtoevidencewhichwouldcapturethisexperienceandmakeitintelligibleandsusceptibletosubsequentanalysisandargument.Thedataatthepointatwhichitwasgatheredcanberoughlycategorizedaseitherraworinterpretive-,andaseither RESEARCHINGDRAMAINTHECLASSROOM83immediateorinterim.ByrawdataImeanevidencewithnospecificinterpretivefocusatthetimeitwascollected,whereasinterpretivedatawas,fromtheoutset,concernedwithevaluativejudgments.Immediatedataisthatwhichwasgatheredatthetimethelessonswerepreparedandtaught,whilstinterimdatawasgatheredoveraperiodoftimebetweentheteachingandthefinalwrittenanalysis.Therawdatacanthereforebelistedasfollows:1Thetextsofthestoriesuseddirectlytoinformthelessonsandthehistoricalsourcesofthesetexts.2Lessonplans3Videoandaudiorecordingsofthelessonstaught.ThesewerethemostcrucialrecordsforsubsequentanalysisbutonlyforthefinalcasestudywasIabletosecurethehelpofauniversitytechnician.Ontheotheroccasionsthelessonswererecordedbytheclassteachersandonaudiotapeasback-up.Thechildrenwereevidentlyusedtovideocameras,eitherathomeorintheclassroom,andveryquicklybegantoignoreitspresence.Itsuccessfullycapturedwholeclassworkinrole;wholeclassdiscussionsoutofrole;bothteacher’sandchildren’sfacialexpressions,movementsanduseofgesture;andgroupworkpresentedtotheclass.Itdidnotcapturethesubstanceofchildren’stalkwhentheyworkedsimultaneouslyinsmallgroups.4Children’swritingordrawingfromthesessionsItookorfollowupsessionsledbytheteacher.Itiscommoninthiskindofresearchforchildrentoberequestedtokeepjournalsortorecordtheirwrittenresponsesattheendofalesson(Edmiston,1995;Somers,op.cit.).Ihavediscussedsomeofthelimitationsofsuchevidenceinthepreviouschapterandsawitasparticularlyproblematicinmycaseforanumberofadditionalreasons.Noneofthechildrenwereusedtojournal-keeping;somewereveryinexperienced,poororveryyoungwriters;andthepressuresonthedramatimeIhadwitheachclasswereacute.Idecided,again,tohavethemwriteinwaystheywereusedtoandinwaysIwoulduse,asaclassteacher,todevelopthedramaideasinseparatesessions—throughstraightforwardwrittenquestions,storywriting,simplepoetry,anddrawing.TheseprovedtobeoflimitedvaluewhenIeventuallyfoundthefocusforeachcasestudyandweremostusefulassourcesofevidenceinwaysIwouldneverhavepredicted,particularlyinthecaseofTheStarMaiden.Intheend,thebestsourcesofinformationaboutindividualchildren’sreflectionsandresponseswerethewholeclassdiscussionsrecordedonvideoandaudiotape.5Relevantschooldocumentation.Noneoftheschoolshadapolicystatementondrama,otherthansomeverygeneralstatementssubsumedwithinEnglishdocuments,andtheparticularareaofmoraleducationwasstronglyassociatedwithRE.Iconsultedeachschool’sgeneralstatementsofaimswithregardtochildren’smoralandbehaviouraldevelopmentbutIwasconcernedabouttheethicsofseekingpermissiontoseeindividualchildren’srecordsandwasunsurewhetherthiswouldbegrantedorwouldindeedbynecessary.Idecidedtorefrainfromrequestingsuchaccessunlessanindividualchildunexpectedlybecameaparticularfocusofinterestinwayswhichstretchedbeyondtheinformationteacherscouldinformallyprovidemewith.Intheevent,thisdidnothappen. 84DRAMA,NARRATIVEANDMORALEDUCATIONMostoftheaboveevidencewasgatheredimmediately,withthesignificantexceptionbeingthehistoricalsourcesofthetaleofTheStarMaiden.TherealizationthatthissourcewascloserintoneandimagerytoEsbensen’sretellingthanIhadthoughtitwouldbesubsequentlyhelpeddeterminethefocusfortheanalysisofthedrama.Theinterpretivedataconsistedof1Teachers’commentsandresponses.Mostofthesewereimmediatetothetimeofteachingandweregatheredinformallyandrecordedbymyselfinnoteform.Iinitiallyfloatedtheideatooneortwoteachersoftheirkeepingawrittenjournalofresponsesbutthiswasgivenanegativereception,mainlyduetoperceiveddemandsuponteachertime,soIdroppedtheidea.Intwocases,Icontactedteachersforinterimcommentsonspecificissues.Allteacherswereaskedtorespondtoinitialwrittenanalysesofthedramasessions,thoughonlyonerespondedinwrittenform.2Lessonevaluations.Theseweremyimmediateresponsestoeachsession,recordedsoonafteritwastaught.3JournalThiswason-goingandlooselystructured,inalooseleaffolder.Itwasarecordofideas,insights,doubts,responsestothingsIhadreadastheymightimpingeuponmyunderstandingofthedramalessons,andtoconversationswithmycolleaguesandstudents.Itwaskeptinnoteformthroughoutallfivestagesoftheresearchprocess.AnalysingtheDataIhaveindicatedthattheprincipalproblemassociatedwithreflectivepractitionerresearchisconcernedwithensuringsufficientcriticaldistancebetweenoneselfandone’spracticeinordertoanalyseitfairlyandwithintegrity.Theprocesswherebyavarietyofperspectivesaresolicitedtoinformtheresearchanalysisisknownastriangulation.Recently,however,Taylorhasputforwardthealternativeconceptofcrystallization.This,heargues:rejectspositivistandneo-positivistideasoftruth,validityandfalsification,andconfirmstheimportanceofstruggle,ambiguityandcontradiction,allnotedfeaturesofthereflectivepractitioner’sjourney.(1996,p.44)Themetaphorofcrystallization,heargues‘beautifullycaptureshowourperspectivesareshapedbyour“angleofrepose”’(ibid.,p.44)anditistheconceptwhichmostaccuratelyexplainshowIachievedcriticaldistancefrommyteaching.Oneofthechiefaidstothisprocessofcrystallizationwastime.Timedistancedmefromtheimmediaciesoftheexperienceandprovidedagapwhereindifferentexperiences,thoughts,readingsandconversationsweregiventheconceptualspacetoinformmycriticalresponsesbeforebeginningtheformalanalysis.Inadditiontothedatagatheredandlistedabove,eachanalysiswasthereforeinformedbyfurthersourcesofinterimevidence,allnotedinjournalform.Thesewere: RESEARCHINGDRAMAINTHECLASSROOM85•ahistoricalandcriticalliteraryanalysisofthetalewhichhadformedthepre-texttothedrama;•useofthedramastructuresdevelopedduringthesessions,and/orvideoedextractsfromthesessionsthemselves,asmaterialforworkwithstudentsandteachers.Thisprovidedtheopportunityforfurtherreflectionuponthematerialandallowedmyownperceptionstobeinformedbythoseofinterestedpractitioners;•thesharingofspecificperceptions,ideas,doubtsandinsightswithcolleaguesfordiscussionorfeedback.Thevisualandoralrecordsprovidedbythevideoedmaterialwerethentranscribedindetailandstudiedforaspectswhichcouldilluminatewhathadbythistimeemergedasthepointsofparticularinterestforeachcasestudy.Theywerewrittenintheformofperformancerecords,withdramaticdialoguerecordedinscriptedform,togetherwithdetailednotesofrelevantmovements,gestures,facialexpressionandtoneofvoice.ThetranscriptionswerekeptinalooseleaffolderandmadeononesideonlyofA4paper,withtheadjacentblanksheetbeingusedfornotesandcommentary.9Thisdetailedrecord,whenanalysed,wastoshow,inGeertz’swords,how‘theverysmallsignalscancarryverybigmessages’(1988,p.59).Iusedcolouredhighlighterpenstodenotedifferentthemesandusedtheskillsofclosetextualanalysistomakesenseofthetranscriptions,regardingthemasartisticaswellashistoricaldocuments.Inthiswaytheprocessofwritingitselfbecameacrucialpartoftheanalyticalprocess,astruggletofindasuitableformandanauthenticvoice,todojusticetowhatGeertzhasdescribedasthepurposeofethnographictexts.Ethnographersneedtoconvinceus…notmerelythattheythemselveshavetruly‘beenthere’but…thathadwebeenthereweshouldhaveseenwhattheysaw,feltwhattheyfelt,concludedwhattheyconcluded.(1988,p.16)Theinitialdraftofeachcasestudywassubmittedtocolleaguesandtotheclassteachersinvolved.Theircommentsandcriticalfeedbackinformedthesubsequentredraftsandhelpeddeepentheprocessofcrystallization.PresentingtheFindingsEachofthefollowingcasestudiesconsistsof:•asummaryofthetaleintheversionIusedforthedramaandananalysisofthemoralvaluesembeddedwithinthistextandinthosehistoricalsourceswhichhaveinfluencedit;•anexplanationofthefocusofthecasestudy;•anarrativesummaryofthelessonswithrelevantcontextualdetailsabouttheschool,thechildren,theconditionsunderwhichthesessionsweretaughtandthereasonsbehindthechoiceoffocusforthedrama; 86DRAMA,NARRATIVEANDMORALEDUCATION•detailedanalysesofselectedpartsofthelessons,intendedtoilluminatetheparticularfocusofeachcasestudy.Notes1TherepresentationofSimonisevidentlyproblematicinsuchadramaandwassensitivelymanagedbytheuseofphotographicmaterial,byteacherinroleasoneofSimon’sparentsandbytheuseofanemptychair(op.cit.,p.110).2Taylorprovidesabriefdescriptionoftheaimsandvaluesofpositivismandneo-positivismandattemptsadetailedrefutationofitsclaims,particularlywithintheArts.Seepp.4–16.Forafurther,moregeneralaccountofpositivismseeCarrandKemmis,1986,pp.61–70.3Theattemptstouniversalizetheevidencetomakeitcountasproofinvolvedtheparticipationof74teachers,selectedbyLEAsandadvisorsasgood,usingthematerialwhichagroupoffiveteachershaddevelopedandsawastheirbest.ObviouslyissuesofvaluewereattheheartoftheprojectfromitscommencementandSomerslistsaseriesofthirteenbulletpointswherehedetectsneedforfurtherresearch,manyofwhichareconcernedwithfurtherobjectifyingthefindings.Thus,atthecompletionoftheproject,heiswellawarethatissuesofsubjectivevaluestillremainunresolved(op.cit.,pp.117–118).4Significantly,SomersreferstothedevelopmentalmodelsofPiaget,KohlbergandCourtneyonthefirstpageofhisreport(op.cit.,p.108).5SeeStenhouse,1975,Chapter6,pp.70–83;andp.97forhiscommentsonthecomparativesuitabilitiesoftheobjectivesandprocessmodelsofcurriculumdesign.6Foradetailedanalysisofprofessionalaccountabilityandthenatureofaccounts,seeLangford,1985,Chapter4.7SeeGlaser,B.G.andStrauss,A.L.(1967)forafullanalysisoftheconceptofgroundedtheory.8Forthepurposesofthisresearch,InormallybeganbyfindingaparticularstoryIwishedtoworkwith,ratherthanattemptingtofindastorytosuitaparticulargroupofchildren.9Thetranscriptionsdidnotrecordeveryinterruptionandeveryindividualwordspoken.Theyfollowedthedevelopmentofthedialogueandrecordedallsalientcontributions. Chapter8TheBrahmin,theThiefandtheOgre:DramaasPedagogyforMoralEducationTheStory:TheBrahmin,theThiefandtheOgreThisstorytellsofaBrahminwho,thoughpoor,alwaysremainedgood,honestandhumbleandwhoregularlyprayedtotheGods.Becauseofthis,theGodsdecidetorewardhimandakindlypersonmakeshimthegiftoftwocalveswhichhetakesgreatcareof.However,aThiefseesthecalvesanddecidestostealthem.Thatnight,onhisjourneytotheBrahmin’scottage,heisaccostedbyanOgrewho,onlearningoftheThiefspurpose,decidestoaccompanyhiminordertoeattheBrahmin.Onceinthecottage,however,theybegintoargueoverwhethertheThiefshouldstealthecalvesfirstortheOgreeattheBrahminfirst.TheirargumentsawakentheBrahminwhopraystotheGodsandtheypromptlyrespondbygettingridoftheOgre;whereupontheBrahminreachesforastickandputstheThieftoflightbyclubbinghimoverthehead.IfoundthisEnglishlanguageversionofthestoryinavolumeentitledMorestoriesfromPanchatantra(1981).ThePanchatantraisanancienttext,datingfrombetween100BCand500ADanditsframestoryexplainsthepurposeofthetalesitcontains.ThesearepurportedtobethestoriesthroughwhichawiseoldBrahmintaughtthreestupidyoungprincesthepracticalwisdomtheywouldneedtobesuccessfulrulersofthekingdomstheywereduetoinherit.Assuch,theirlessonsareaboutunderstandingandmanipulatingpeopleandcircumstancespragmaticallyratherthanaccordingtoanyethicalcode.Inthisway,thetalesare‘moral’onlyinthesamesenseasAesop’sFables.TheHemkuntPressisnotstockedinEnglishbookshopsbutiswidelycirculatedinIndia,gearedtowardareadingaudienceofyoungchildren.ItisaSikhownedinstitution,butitpackagesaschildren’sliteraturethestoriesfromtheentirevarietyofIndia’sculturalandreligiousbackgrounds.1Althoughafableinitsoriginalform,theretellingofthisparticularstory,byVernonThomas,readslikethesortoftalefavouredbythosenineteenthcenturywriterswhousedfairystoriesformorallydidacticpurposes.2Itisinteresting,therefore,tocomparethisversionwithatranslationoftheoriginal(Edgerton,1965).Here,theBrahmindoesnotstriketheThiefbutfrightenshimawaybybrandishinghisclub.Theoriginalalsostatesclearlythemoralofthetale:‘Evenenemiesmaybeusefulwhentheyfalloutwitheachother.’Thisparticularmoral—apracticallessonfortheMachiavellianprince—isnotprintedintheHemkuntversionandis,infact,totallyobscuredbyanumberofdidacticlessonsimplicitwithinthenarrative. 88DRAMA,NARRATIVEANDMORALEDUCATIONInbothversions,theprotagonistsremainarchetypal,bywhichImeanthattheyconformtowhatNorthropFryecalls‘associativeclusters’abletoconvey:alargenumberofspecificlearnedassociationswhicharecommunicablebecausealargenumberofpeopleinagivenculturehappentobefamiliarwiththem.(Frye,1965)3AlthoughachildinanethnicallywhiteareaofBritainmaybeunfamiliarwiththeterm‘Brahmin’,thistermbecomessufficientlycommunicableforanunderstandingofthetalewhenheisexplainedasa‘holyman’.TheBrahminandtheThief,therefore,conveyGoodandEvilonthehumanplanewhilsttheGodsandtheOgredosoonasupernaturalplane.Butwhereas,intheinitialtale,thissymmetrywasmerelyfunctional,inthechildren’sversionitismoralistic.Theoriginaltaleisastark,shortpieceofstorytelling,truetotheoraltradition,withnoliteraryembellishments.Thegiftofthecalves,forexample,isnarratedwithoutcomment.ItisnotamoralrewardbutsimplyreflectstherealityofHindusociety,wheresuchgiftstoaBrahminarecommonandpartofthesocialfabricofthecastesystem.Theoriginallistenertothetalewouldhaverecognizedthisassuch,withoutanyneedforfurthercomment.Theimportantnarrativepointisfactual,notmoral,thattheBrahminpossessedthecows,notthathedeservedtohavethem.Inthechild’sversion,however,theBrahmin’sgoodfortuneisportrayedasarewardforhisvirtue,describedasfollows:OnceuponatimetherelivedaBrahminwhowassopoorthathewentaboutinrags,andhadhardlyanythingtoeat.Butthoughhefacedsomuchhardship,theBrahminwasgoodandhonest.Dailyhewouldpray,andacceptwithoutgrumblingwhateverfatehadinstoreforhim.Goodnessis,therefore,portrayedintermsofmeekness,passivity,honestyandreligiouspiety—modelbehaviourforachildrearedonVictorianvalues,infact,amodelsatirized,aswesaw,inSaki’sTheStoryTellerandonewhoseresiduestillpersistsinmanyprimaryclassroomstoday,inbothBritainandIndia.ThatthechildshouldidentifywiththismodelofgoodnessisreinforcedbythedescriptionoftheBrahmin’sattitudetothecalvesheisgiven:Hebegantotakegreatcareofthecalves.Dailyhesawtoitthattheyhadenoughgrasstoeatandwatertodrink.Heiskindtoanimalsandtheyaredescribedashispets.Again,thisisaninterestingdeviationfromtheoriginal,wherethecalvesarealreadygrownandfattenedandnomentionismadeoftheBrahmin’scareforthem.TherealityoflifeinHindusocietyisthatthesecalvesarereligiouslysymbolicofpurityandprosperitybutalsoeconomicallyveryuseful,likelytoprovidetheBrahminwithmilk,iffemale,ortheforcetopullhisplough,ifmale.However,mostoftheIndianchildrenwhoreadtheHemkuntPressareurbanand THEBRAHMIN,THETHIEFANDTHEOGRE;DRAMAASPEDAGOGY89middle-classandmanyarenotHindu;andthisrevisedportrayalofthecalvescreatesanimageofcuddlybabyanimals,accessibletoanychildrearedinaculturewheretheliberalwesterntraditionofchildhoodisdominant.4TheBrahmin’sviolenceattheendofthestoryprovidesanethicaljoltinthenarrative.WhenheclubstheThief,itisnottoprotectthecalvesfromharm,buthispropertyfromtheft.Theimpliedmoralmessagesatthispointseemtobethatviolenceisjustifiablewhendefendingone’spropertyandthatthieveswillbepunishedfortheircrimes.AswiththoseVictorianfairytalescriticizedbyTatar,thelevelofviolencere-enforcesthelesson;justasMr.Miaccawillchopyourlegoffifyoudisobeyyourparents,youwillbebeatenwithastickifyousteal.Nevertheless,theBrahmin’suseofviolencesitsuneasilyalongsidethemodelofpassivegoodnessthathepreviouslyappearedtoembody.Herewehaveanexample,therefore,ofhow,withtheliteraryretellingoffairystories,wegetdifferentandoftencontradictoryvalueslayeredintotheirfabriccreatingmoralanomalieswhicharedifficulttoresolve.Indeed,theissuesconnectedwiththeuseofviolenceraisedunintentionallybythestoryareveryrelevantforachildincontemporaryBritishsociety:•Arechildreninfluencedbytheexposuretoviolenceinfiction?(witnessthefuroreoverviolentvideossuchasChild’sPlay3whichaccompaniedtwomurdercasesin1993)5•Isviolencejustifiablewhendefendingone’spropertyandifso,whatlevelofviolence?•Canonebegoodandviolent?Ihaveproposedthatprocessdramaprovidesamethodologywhichallowsforthecommunalinvestigationandinterrogationofthevalueswithinsuchtales.Theliteraryformisascapableasthedramaticformforcreatingnewmoralmeaningsinstories,ofcourse;and,aswesawinChapter6,processdramacanbecomeasdidacticandmonologicalasaliterarytext.Inthesessionsdescribedbelow,myintentionwastocreateadramawhichdialogizedThomas’tale,seekingtoilluminatehowthechildrenintepreteditsmoralagendaandthen,throughdrama,toexplorethisagendathroughproblematizingit.IwishtonowmoveontoanalyseaspectsofthesessionsItaughtaroundthisstory.IrefertothedifferentclassesasSophie’sclass,withwhomIspentthreesessions,eachonehourinlength,andMartin’sclasswithwhomIspenttwofifty-minutesessions.Withbothclasses,therewasaweekinbetweeneachlesson.Sophie’sclasswasagroupof8and9year-oldchildrenfromavillageChurchofEnglandschoolinWarwickshire.Theyweredescribedbytheirteacherasa‘niceclass’witha‘fairlytypicalsocialmixandspreadofacademicabilities’.Martin’sclass,agedbetween7and9,werefromaschoolsituatedinthecentreofasociallydeprivedhousingestateontheoutskirtsofalargecity,Sixofthechildrenwerestatementedforparticularlearningandbehaviouraldifficultiesbut,accordingtotheclassteacher,roughlyhalftheclasswereinneedofadditional,learningsupport.Ipresentthelessonsbelowasnarrativesummaries,emphasizingthestorywhichthedramadeveloped. 90DRAMA,NARRATIVEANDMORALEDUCATIONTheLessonsinSummaryLesson1:Thiswasessentiallythesameforbothclasses.IinformedthechildrenthatthetaleIwasgoingtotellwasfromIndiaandexplainedthatHinduismwasoneofthereligionsinIndiaandthataBrahminwasaHindupriestorHolyman.OtherculturalorreligiousaspectswhichneededexplanationIincorporatedintothenarrativeofthetale,whichIrelatedorallyanddramatically;thatis,Itookonthecharacteristicsofallthecharactersandallowedthemtospeakdirectlywhenpossible.Afterthis,IexplainedthesourceofthetaleviatheframestoryofthePanchatantraandaskedthechildrentohelpmedecidewhatthemoralofthestorymightbe,presentingthemwithanumberofpossibilities.Aftercollectingtheirideas,Ithenaskedthemtosuggestexamplesofgoodethicalconductandbadethicalconductinthestory,6andnotedthesedown.Withbothclasses,childrenvolunteeredthattheBrahmin’shittingtheThiefovertheheadwasanexampleofbadethics.Pickinguponthisidea,Iaskediftheythoughtthisstorywasagoodoneforchildrenoftheirageoryoungerandwhethertheythoughttheendingoughttobechanged?Allthoughttheendingshould,indeed,bechanged.IputSophie’sclassingroupstoworkoutpossibledifferentendingsforthetale,suitableforchildrenoftheirage,whichtheypresentedindramaticform.WithMartin’sclass,Ididthesameexerciseviaforumtheatre,inwhichIplayedtheBrahminanddifferentchildrentookontheroleoftheThief.Ispokeandactedonlyasthechildrensuggested.Insubsequentsessionswithbothclasses,weinvented,throughdrama,anewstoryasasequeltothefirst,leavingtheviolentendingintact.Lesson2(Sophie’sClass)Icastthechildreninitiallyaslocalvillagersandnarratedanewsectionofthestory,enteringinroleasapoorneighbour,recentlymovedintothevillage,themotherofthreechildren.ItoldthemhowIwasworriedaboutmyhusbandwhohadreturnedhomelatelastnightwithhisheadbleedingandmutteringsomethingaboutgoingbacktosortthingsoutwithacertainBrahmin.Underquestioning,itemergedthatmyhusbandhadbeenathief,stealingfood,giftsformeandtoysforthechildren.Hehadbeencaught,however,andhadsubsequentlymadeapromisetometostopthieving.Wehadmovedtothisvillagetotrytostartanewlifewherehewouldnotbeknownasathief.Thechildrensoontoldmethatthey,asvillagers,knewwhathadhappenedandagreedtohelpmepreventmyhusbandfromdoinganythingwrong,alsopromisingtoensurethathewouldn’tcometoanyfurtherharm.TheysetoffthroughthewoodsandhidneartheBrahmin’scottage.IapproachedastheThief.TheysurroundedmeandledmeintoconfesstotheBrahmin.ChildrennowtookonthecollectiveroleoftheBrahmin,whereuponIinformedhimthatIhadnotcometostealhiscalvesbuttodemandonefromhim;ashewassupposedtobeagoodman,andinthebestinterestsofmywifeandchildren,heoughttocomplywiththisrequest.Adiscussionensuedasthechildrentriedtomakesenseofthisunexpectedturnandnoresolutionwasachieved.Istoppedthedramawiththequestion:‘Iwonderwhat THEBRAHMIN,THETHIEFANDTHEOGRE;DRAMAASPEDAGOGY91LordVishnuisthinking?’andrecastthechildrenastheGods,whereupontheydiscussedwhattheyfeltoughttohappen.Thelessonendedbeforethiswasconcluded.Lesson3Afterrecappingthelastsession,thechildrenreturnedtotheirrolesasGodsandquestionedmeinroleastheThiefastomymotivesinreturninganddemandingthattheBrahmingivemeacalf.TheyeventuallyresolvedthatthequarrelmustbeamatterfortheBrahminandtheThieftodecideamongstthemselves,thatdivineinterventionwasinappropriate.IthencasthalfoftheclassincollectiveroleastheThief,theotherhalfastheBrahminandtheyarguedthematterfurther.Insmallgroups,thechildrenthendecideduponandactedoutanappropriateendingtothisnewstory.Lesson2(Martin’sClass)ThetwodramasessionswithSophie’sclasswereonlypartiallysuccessful,inasmuchastherewastoomuchrolechangingwhich,inturn,addedverylittletothedramatictension.Therewas,too,anoveremphasisontalkandthechangesofroledidnotachievethevarietyofperspectiveIhadintendedandcertainlydidnotdeepenthechildren’sinvolvement.Martin’sclasswasmorevolatileanddifficulttocontrol.ForthesereasonsIsimplifiedthedramaandkeptthechildreninroleasvillagersthroughout.Thisincreasedthedrama’sfluidityandcreatedasimplerbutmorecoherentstructure.WhenthechildrenapprehendedtheThief(teacher-in-role),theysathimdownandinterrogatedhim.TheybegantosympathizewithhiscaseandwenttotheBrahmin(again,teacherinrole)totryandconvincehimthatheoughttogivetheThiefoneofthecalves.AswithSophie’sclass,thesestrategieswereusedtoexplorethedilemma,notresolveitand,insmallgroups,thechildrenendedthesessionbyactingoutwhattheysawasanappropriateendingforthestory.AnalysingChildren’sEthicalThinkingColby(1982)hasanalysedinsomedetailanextractfromajustifiablyfamousvideoeddramasessionledbyTomStabler,Elijah,onthevideoThreeLoomsWaiting.Itisaremarkablepieceofimproviseddrama,butwhenColbyusesittoshowhowthemoralreasoningofagroupof10year-oldsinrole,withinthespaceofafewminutes,showsevidenceofmovingfromStage3toStage5ofKohlberg’sStagesofMoralDevelopment,wemaywellregardhisconclusionswithsomescepticism(Colby,1982,pp.16–20).Stage5moralreasoningisinthepost-conventionallevelandisoftennotachievedinmatureadults,accordingtoKohlberg.Inthesubsequentanalysis,Imakenosimilarclaims.ThisisnotsimplybecausethisparticulardramawasinferiorbutalsobecauseIseeKohlberg’sschemaasopentoquestion,forreasonsdiscussedinChapter1,andfindthelanguageofthevirtuesasexpressedthroughsocialrolesmoreintunewiththenatureofdramaticnarrativethanthelanguageofuniversalmoralprecepts.Withinthecontextofmyownresearch,theclaimsImakearefarlessambitiousthanthosemadebyColby.Nevertheless,Ithinkthat,even 92DRAMA,NARRATIVEANDMORALEDUCATIONwithinordinarylessonssuchasthese,whichdonotproduceremarkableresults,thereisenoughevidencetoexplorehowchildrencananddoengagewithethicalthinkingandexpressmoralmeaningthroughtheartformofprocessdrama.TheChildren’sPerceptionsoftheValuesintheStoryIpresentedalistofsevenstatementsandaskedthechildreneachtochooseasmanyasthreeofthemasthemostlikelymoralstothestory.ThereasonsforpresentingoptionswhichIhadpreviouslythoughtoutmyselfweretwofold:toavoidthesimpledo’sanddon’tsIwouldhaveexpectedfromchildrensoyoung;andtoensurethatthemoraloftheoriginalstorywasunobtrusivelyamongthoseopentochoice.7Forty-threechildrenwereinvolvedinallandIpresenttheiropinionsbelow:8•Ifyousteal,youwillbepunished20•Ifyoupray,Godwilllookafteryou35•Ifyouarekind,youwillberewarded38•Evenyourenemiescanhelpyouiftheyquarrelwithoneanother4•Becarefulofthefriendsyouchoose,astheymightgetyouintotrouble22•Thievesarebadpeople24•Nomatterhowpooryouare,youmustnotsteal38TheseresponsesappeartosupporttheinterpretationofthevaluesimplicittothestorywhichIofferedearlier.Itisalsoquiteclearthatthechildrenpickedupthesevalues,ratherthantheintendedmoraloftheoriginaltaleandthattheywereusedtostoriescarryingdidacticmessages.Thisexercisehelpeddeterminethefocusofsubsequentsessions,whichtookthelaststatementonthelistasitsstartingpoint.Thechildrensuggestedthefollowingasexamplesofgoodandbadethicalaction.Unlikethepreviousresponses,thesesuggestionswereentirelytheirown:GoodEthics:ThefarmergavetheBrahminthecalves(bothclasses)TheBrahminprayedtoVishnuTheBrahminwasalwayshelpfulandgoodTheBrahminlookedafterthecalves(bothclasses)Vishnuinfluencedthefarmertobegenerous(bothclasses)BadEthics:TheOgrewantedtoeattheBrahmin(bothclasses)TheThieftriedtostealthecalves THEBRAHMIN,THETHIEFANDTHEOGRE;DRAMAASPEDAGOGY93TheOgreandtheThiefquarrelledTheBrahminhittheThiefonthehead(bothclasses)Twoteamedupagainstone(bothclasses)Thechildren,then,althoughnotcapableofpresentingasatisfactorymoralforthestoryintheirownwords,werenonethelesscapableofrecognizingawidevarietyofgoodandbadethicalbehaviourwithinthecontextofthestory.Perhapstheywouldnothavebeenabletodefinethemassuch,buttheyhadnotroubleinarticulatingmanifestationsofgenerosity;religiouspiety;helpfulness;careforlivingthings;thebenevolentexerciseofauthority;selfishness;quarrelsomeness;violenceandbullying.Thesewerethevirtuesandvicestheyimplicitlyunderstood,examplesofthethickconceptsthroughwhichtheygraspedandmadesenseofthemoraluniverseandWilliamsrecognizesthatthisimplicitnessis,inpart,characteristicofhowtheseconceptsinfluenceaction.Thebenevolentorkindheartedpersondoesbenevolentthings,butdoesthemunderotherdescriptions,suchas‘sheneedsit’,‘itwillcheerhimup’,‘itwillstopthepain’.Thedescriptionofthevirtueisnotitselfthedescriptionthatappearsintheconsideration.(1985,p.10)So,ifthefirstoftheseexercisesenabledthechildrentodeconstructtheethicalvaluesembeddedinthenarrative,thislatterexerciseallowedthemtobegintoreconstructtheethicsofthestoryinthelightofthesensetheymadeofthecharacters’actions.DramaPedagogyasPedagogyforMoralEducationAtthetimeItaughttheselessons,therehadbeenmuchreportingonthetelevisionandinthepressoncrimeandviolence,particularlycommittedbyyouths.Suchwavesofmoralpanic9sweepthemediaatregularintervalsandthereporting,inparticularinthetabloids,tendstosensationalizetheissues,turningcomplexproblemsintosimplisticheadlines.Reportingonhisresearchintothesourcesofchildren’sinformation,Cullingfordcommentsthat‘Items(ofnews)remainpartofaninventoryofattitudesratherthantheconstructionofclearprinciples’(1992,p.28).Hegoesontopointout:‘Theimagesexperiencedontelevisionmightnotalwaysbeunderstoodbuttheyneverthelesscontainanimpactthatremains’(ibid.,p.30).Thechoiceoffocusforthedramawas,therefore,intendedtoprovideaplatformfortheexplorationofacurrentmoraldebatethroughasituationwhichactedasametaphorfortheseissues.ThedramawasintendedtoworkdialogicallyagainstthestorybutIdidnotwishtoreplaceoneover-simplifiedmessagewithanother.Myaimwastocreateamoremorallyambiguousinstanceofstealing,toraisequestionsandnotprovideanswers.BycreatingabelievablesocialbackgroundfortheThief,IcreatedamoraldilemmathatIdidnothaveanyanswerstomyselfandnoagendaastohowIwantedittoend.MysympathiesweresplitbetweentwocharactersandthisIfeltwasessentialforthedramatobebothhonestandeffective. 94DRAMA,NARRATIVEANDMORALEDUCATIONIntheanalysiswhichfollows,Ihavechosentofocusnotonanymeaningswhichchildrenmighthaveexpressedoutsideofthedrama,butontheirworkwithinit.Myintentionisnottopresentdramaasavehiclewhoseefficacywejudgeonlyinachild’sresponsesoutsidetheartformbuttoilluminatehowdramacanenablechildrentomakemoralmeaningsinwayswhicharedistinctivetoit.Asdramaisamulti-dimensionalactivity,Ihaveaddressedthisanalysisaccordingtosixframesofreferencewhichemergedasthemostappositelensesthroughwhichtoviewthisparticularcasestudy.Ibelievetheycouldbetransitionaltowardamoregeneralmodelbutamnotpresentingthemassuchhere.1.ArchetypesandtheBrotherhoodCodeArchetypalcharacterswithinfairytaleshaveastrongnarrativefunctionastheyimpactimmediatelyuponchildren,providingclearandinstantrecognitionpatterns.Thiscontrastswiththegradualandcomplexwayinwhichthecharactersofthemoreliterarynovelareconveyedtothereader.Thefiguresinfairytalessharemoreincommonwiththestockcharactersofpopularfictionandalso,importantly,withthoseofpopulardrama.ThislinkhasbeenemphasizedbyO’Neillwhowrites:Valuablepre-textsforprocessdramaoccurinfolk-tales,fairytales,mythsandhistoricalincidents…Mythandarchetypenevermerelyresideinremoteandseeminglyirrelevanttalesoflongago.Theirpowerfulechoesstillwaittowakeusthroughthepre-textsweemploy.Thesearchetypalandessentiallydramaticthreadsintheworkwillconnectitwithawidertheatreheritageandtheliterary,mythicanddramaticlegacyofotherculturesaswellaswiththesoapoperasandpopularmovies,wherearchetypesclearlypersist.(1995,p.43)Thearchetypalcharactersintheoriginalstorycarriedmorallysimplisticmeanings,servingtodefinethemoralreferencepointsofthetale;aholymanisgood,athiefandanogrearebad.SuchsimplicityissimilartotheformulaicnatureofthecharactersinBmoviesandTurner,inanalysingtheappropriatenessofPropp’smorphologyofthefolk-taletopopularfilmssuchasStarWars,drawscomparisonssimilarinimplicationtothepointsmadebyO’Neill.Hespeculatesthat:‘…themodernfeaturefilmandtheprimitivefairytaleservesimilarfunctionstotheirrespectiveaudiences’(1993,p.71).ItisworthlingeringforawhiletoconsiderthearchetypalBmoviecharacterandthemoralimpactheorshemakes.Suchfiguresare,ofcourse,associatedwithparticulargenresoffilm.Insuchfilms—thewestern,thethriller,orthepolicedrama,forexample—thevillains,heroinesandheroesareasreadilyidentifiableastheogres,witchesandprincessesoffairytalesbuttheimmediacyoftheirimpactisduetothevisualandauralsignallingconveyedbytheirphysicalpresence—costume,posture,facialexpression,toneofvoice.Inaclassicfilmnoir,too,onesuchasTheMalteseFalconorTheBigSleep,ourrecognitionofthestockcharactersoftheprivateeyeandthefemmefatalearemadesimilarlyimmediatethroughvisualandauralmeans:herblackdress,hisdistinctivehatand THEBRAHMIN,THETHIEFANDTHEOGRE;DRAMAASPEDAGOGY95suit;herlingeringgazeandsensuality,hiscynicalwise-crackingandhard-boiledexterior.However,withtheseimagescomemoralexpectationsequallyimmediatebutatoncemoreambivalent.Bothcharacterswillbeflawedandwillgeneratesexualheatwhichresonateswithamoregeneralsenseofmoraldanger.Hewilloperateonthemarginsofthelawadministeringhisownroughjustice,willbesurroundedbycorruptionbutwillremainuntaintedbyit.Shewilltempthimand,thoughhisprideanddecencywillprevail,itwillnotdosowithoutemphasizinghisloneliness,alonelinesswhichsignifiesthedifficultyofretainingamoralpositioninacorruptsociety.Polanski’sChinatownsetsuptheseambivalentmoralexpectationsonlytoundermineandfrustratethem.Inmanyways,JakeGiddisappearstobethearchetypalprivateeyeinthemouldofPhilipMarlow.Hewisecracks,issingle-mindedinhissearchfortruth,andhisworkbringshimintoconflictwiththelocalpolice,whoareprofessionallyandintellectuallyhisinferiors.Theplotofthefilmappearstocloselyfollowthosetypicalofthegenre.Giddisbecomessexuallyinvolvedwithhisclient,awealthywidow,whoishidingadarksecretwhichhemanagestoexposeinthefilm’sdénouement.Butthecomparisonsaremisleadingfor,althoughGiddismightlooklikePhilipMarlow,heishismoralinferior.TheplotissetinmotionthroughGiddis’predilectionforhandlingcasesofadultery,whichMarlowmakesclearhewillnevertouch.EvelynMulraymighthavetheappearanceofafemmefatalebutsheisnothardandscheming,butavulnerableandcourageouswoman.Hersecretis,indeed,aguiltyonebuttheguiltisherfather’s,notherown.Intheend,Giddis’pridedoesnotmorallysavehim,itleadstodisasterand,thoughheprovestobeMrsMulray’snemesis,thismarksthetriumphofevilanderror,notofjusticeandtruth,andthereisnomoralredemptioninthefinalimagesoflonelinessandloss.Inthisfilm,thearchetypes,andhencethegenre,aretransformedandthisdisturbanceleadstoadeepeningoftheirmoralresonance.Archetypalcharacterssuchastheprivateeye,likethegenresinwhichtheyareembodied,areculturallylearned,ofcourse.ThefigureoftheBrahminwas,however,culturallydistantforboththeseclassesofchildrenbut,throughdramaticstorytelling,Iwasabletoendowhimwiththestockcharacteristicsofgoodnessandpietywhichtheycouldimmediatelyrecognize.Ikneltandprayed,seriouslyandwithhumility,tothankLordVishnuforhisgenerosity;Ismiledatthecalvesandmimedpettingthem.TheThiefIportrayedinaneutrallightintheinitialstory.Thefactthathewasdescribedas(andonlyas)athief,thathesetouttostealandthathestruckupanefariousdealwithanogrewassufficienttoestablishhisarchetypalcharacteristicswhichIlater,withinthedrama,wishedtoundermine.Children’scommentswithinthedramashowedthatthesesimpleimpressionsofgoodversusbad,embodiedwithinthetwooppositionalcharacters,wereverypersistent.‘Youweregoingtosteal!Stealingisbad!’wastheunsurprisingandemphaticdenunciationmadebyonegirlinroleastheBrahminduringthesecondlessonwithSophie’sclass.Thefollowingshortsectionisalsotakenfromthislesson.IwasinroleastheBrahminandthechildrenhadcometowarnmethattheThiefwasreturningtomycottage:Brahmin:I’mnotsureIneedyourhelp.I’vegotthisbigstick.Thatfrightenedhimawaylasttime.Whycan’tIusethisagain? 96DRAMA,NARRATIVEANDMORALEDUCATIONVill1:Becauseyouhithimontheheadandhisheadwasbleeding.Vill2:Hewasonlytryingtostealbecausehewaspoorandhehasn’tgotanyfood.Vill3:Hedoesn’thaveanymoney.Brahmin:WellIwaspoorandIdidn’thaveanyfoodandIdidn’tstealanything.Vill2:Wellyou’regood,aren’tyou?Brahmin:Wellheshouldbegood!Vill4:That’sbecauseyou’vegotLordVishnuandhehasn’t.TheBrahminisstillseenasessentiallygood,despitehisviolentactionwhichthechildrenhadcondemned;buttheThief,althoughhisintentionswerebad,isnolongerseenasabadperson.Thisisasimplebutimportantpoint.ThedramaofTheBrahminandtheThiefhadbegunwithtwoarchetypalfiguresrepresentinggoodandbadbuttheirsimplisticmoralmeaningshadbeenquicklyunderminedthroughacombinationofvisualsignalling(analysedinthenextsection),andbyachangeintheframethroughwhichtheThiefwaspresented.Attheheartofthedramathereremainedatension,however,betweenthemoralrestrictivenessofthearchetypesandtheirmoralreassessment,whichtheeventsofthedramahadsetinmotion.ThiswasaprocessdramaticallyfarlesssophisticatedthaninthefilmChinatown,ofcourse,butnotablysimilarinitsintentionandmoralpurposeanditcanbeilluminatedbyreferencetoDorothyHeathcote’stheoryofthebrotherhoodcode.Ifarchetypalfigureshelpchildrenmakeconnectionsbetweentheparticularandthegeneral,then,withinprocessdrama,thebrotherhoodcodehelpschildrenmakesimilarconnectionsbutinawaywhichismorallyexpansiveandthusabletotransformanddeepenthearchetype.Wagnerhasdescribedthisessentialfeatureofthebrotherhoodcodeasfollows:Thenewsituationontheoutsidemightlookfarremovedfromthechild’sownexperience.Yetbecausethepeopleinthatsituationareinthesamebrotherhoodasthosewhoarefamiliar,thechildcanfocusonthecommonelementlongenoughtoidentify.(Wagner,1979,p.52)So,forthepurposesofthisdrama,theBrahminwasinthebrotherhoodofallthosewhoareenviedfortheirgoodfortune;whofacepersonaldangerthroughthisenvy:whouseviolencetodefendtheirproperty;whoarechallengedtoexaminetheirmoralconsciences.Althoughthechildrencouldnotarticulatethisunderstandinginsuchterms,theiractionsin,forexample,comingtoprotecttheBrahmin,andtheirwordsinrole,suchasthosequotedabove,indicatethatthisishowtheycametoviewhimandhissituation.TheThief,ontheotherhand,cametobelongtothebrotherhoodofallthosewhoresorttocrimedue,inlargemeasure,tosocialcircumstances;whotrytoreformtheirmoralactionsbutfail;whosufferasaconsequenceoftheirmisdeeds;whocometobelieveinthesocialjusticeofwealthredistribution.Throughthebrotherhoodcode,culturallydistantfiguressuchastheBrahminandtheThiefcametocarryambivalentandconflictingmoralmeaningsinaconflictwhichwasnonethelesscomprehensibletotheseyoungchildren.Furthermore,theexpansivequalityofthebrotherhoodcodehelpedpreparethewayforaredefinitionofthemoral THEBRAHMIN,THETHIEFANDTHEOGRE;DRAMAASPEDAGOGY97sympathiesevokedbythenarrativeandhencecontinuedtheredefinitionofthechildren’smoralperspectives,begunwiththeinitialdeconstructionofthestory’svaluesinthefirstsession.Theseperspectiveswereanchoredinparticularityandwerearticulatedthroughthelanguageofdrama.2.TheMoralForceoftheDramaticImageColby(1987)hasarguedcogentlythatclassroomsimulationsandroleplaysprovideonlylimitedopportunitiesformoralgrowth,arguingthatvisualdramaticmetaphorsprovideamuchfullermoralexperience.HeillustrateshisargumentwithreferencetotheclosingimagefromDavidEdgar’sadaptationofTheLifeandAdventuresofNicholasNickleby.Nicholas,nowhappyandsuccessful,standsbeforeanotherwretchedlypoorcrippleinthestreetsofLondon….Nicholasreachesdown,picksuptheboyandstandswithhiminhisarms.Hiseyeslookanguishedlyheavenwardastheteeming,indifferentpopulaceofthecityswarmsaroundhim.Asanimage,itresistsafaciletranslationintolanguage,yetitevokesinanimmediate,eloquentandvisceralwayarangeofmeaningsfromtherealmofethicsandreligion.(1987,p.78)AswiththemomentinJuliusCaesar,whenBrutusstrikesCaesarwiththeknife,presentingavisualmetaphorofthebetrayalofafriendshipintheinterestsofpoliticalfreedom,themoralmetaphorisherecontainedinadramaticimage.ColbyreferstoamomentinaneducationaldramasessiondescribedbyGavinBolton,whereahandshakebetweenablackSouthAfricanandawhiteSouthAfricanjournalistcontainedgreatdramaticpowerandmoralsignificance.Heexplains:Thesesignificantexperiencesaresimilartothenotionofcatharsis…anotionofpracticalwisdomormoralinsightpromotedthroughthe‘temporaryalignmentofpassion,emotionanddesirewithrightprinciple.’(1987,p.11)Suchimagesgaintheirpowerthroughtheirlocationintimeandspace;thatis,throughtheirplacewithinthedramaticnarrativeandviathesemioticcommunicationoftheirvisualsigns—onehumanbeingholdinganother,alookofanguish,ahandshake.Suchmomentsofawe,asHeathcoteandBoltonsomewhatunhelpfullydescribethem,areanalogoustotheconceptofcatharsistheorizedinChapter5.10Theyare,ofcourse,difficulttoachieveinaone-hoursessioninaprimaryclassroombuttheuseofvisualsignallingtocreatesignificantmetaphoricalassociationsdoeshappenreadilyindrama;andwhenthesemetaphorshavemoralmeaning,thismeaningisrenderedbothdeeperandmoreaccessiblefortheparticipants.Forexample,whentellingthestorydramaticallyintheinitialsession,IdeliberatelyendeditwithaphysicalrepresentationoftheThiefcoweringandprotectinghisheadfromtheblowsofthestick;later,inroleashiswife,Ispokesoftlyandheldasmallbundlerepresentingababy;whenIreappearedastheThief,Iheldabandagetomyforehead.All 98DRAMA,NARRATIVEANDMORALEDUCATIONofthesesignalledthattheThiefandhisfamilywerevictims,thusstirringthechildren’sorecticcapacityforpityanddeepeningthedilemmaforthem(theyhadalreadyseenmerepresenttheBrahminasasmiling,kindlyperson).InBeckerman’sterms,theactionbecamedialectic.Noddings,inparticular,hasemphasizedtheimportanceofvisualsignalsforwomenwhenmakingmoraldecisions:Facedwithahypotheticalmoraldilemma,womenoftenaskformoreinformation…Ideally,weneedtotalktoparticipants,toseetheireyesandfacialexpressions,toreceivewhattheyarefeeling.(1984,p.2)ThefactthatNoddingsisfocusingonwomenhereis,initself,metaphorical;womensheseesasrepresentativesofamoralitybaseduponcaringandcompassion.Visualsignsevokethesehumansympathiesandalsoallowforotherprocessesapartfromthelinguistictobecomeengagedinthemoralreasoningtask.ReferringtoworkdonebyHowardGardner’sresearchintothedomainsofintellectualcompetency,Colbywrites:Dramabyitsverynaturehasthepowerto‘yoke’thecompetenciesoftheotherdomainstothemoralreasoningtask,thusallowingthosewithgreatervisual/spatialorkinaestheticintelligencetobringtheirtalentstobearontheproblem.(1982,p.24)Inordertoseehowchildrencancreatesimpledramaticimageswhichresonatemoralmeaning,itisinterestingtolookbrieflyathowthreegirlsandtwoboysfromMartin’sclassdecidedtoconcludethedrama.1Brahmin:I’msorryIhityouonthehead.(Handsthethiefandhiswifeacalf.Allsmileandhugeachother)2Brahmin:I’msorryIhityouovertheheadwiththestick.Thief:That’sOK.(Suddenlybrandishesasmallstickathim)I’vestillgothalfofit!(Pauses,looksatthestick,thenbackattheBrahmin)No!(Dropsthestick)Thanks!(OffershishandtotheBrahmin.Theyshake).Howeverblurredthedistinctionbetweenchild-in-roleandchild-working-with-friend,thesedramaticimageswerestronglydefined,moralmetaphorswhichrejectedviolencewhilecelebratinggenerosityofspiritandfriendship.Throughtheparticularityofstoryandthelanguageofdrama,thechildrenhadthemeanstoexploreandexpresstheirunderstandingsofthesethick,ethicalconcepts.3.MoralArgumentasDramaticDialogueInthepenultimatesceneofTopGirlsbyCarylChurchill,twosistersconfronteachotherinaheatedargument,representingtogetherapoliticalandmoraldilemmafacedbywomeninthe1980s:whethertoachieveindependencebyadoptingthesociallydominantmalevaluesofruthlessnessandcompetitivenessortoadoptthetraditionalroleofwomanas THEBRAHMIN,THETHIEFANDTHEOGRE;DRAMAASPEDAGOGY99carer,hereportrayedpotentiallyasunrewardingdrudgery.Churchillherselfisacommittedfeministandsocialistbuttheactionisconstructeddialectically,soasnottodeliverasimple,didacticcondemnationoftheThatcheriteeldersister,Marlene.Bothprotagonistsarguewithpassion;themoralsituationiscomplexandispresentedassuch.Moraldiscussionasdramaticdialoguediffersfromotherformsofmoraldiscussionintheclassroom.Colby(op.cit.,1987)providesacomprehensivediscussionoftheformalweaknessesofdebates,roleplaysandclassroomsimulations.Essentiallyhisargumentisthatallmitigateagainst‘arealinvolvementinthepredicamentunderstudy’(ibid.,p.76)byeitherencouragingentrenchedargumentorbyconcentratingexclusivelyonlogicandproblemsolving.CitingalateessaybyKohlberg,hearguesthat:‘thepersonalityisunitary;cognitionandaffectjoininsinglestructuresratherthanbeingdividedintoseparateorgansofimpulseandcognition’(ibid.,p.74).Ifthepassionsarenotharnessed,oriftheproblemismorallytooclear-cutandlacksambiguity,thendiscussioninrolewillfailtotakeonthepowerofdramaticdialogue.Butthereisathirdandimportantconstituenttodramaticdialoguewhichdistinguishesitfromdiscussionordebate;inEsslin’swords:‘theverbalelementindramamustfunctionprimarilyasaction’(1987,p.83).Whatmattersmorethanwhatissaidiswhatthewordsdotothecharacterstowhomtheyarespokenorwhospeakthem;whatcountsistheireffectonthewaytheyseetheirsituationandhowthisvisiondefinesorwillredefinetheirsubsequentactions.Below,Ipresenttwoextracts,onefromeachoftheclasses,whichgosomewaytowardillustratingthatimproviseddialogueinprocessdramacanattainthesethreecharacteristicsofdramaticdialogue.Bothextractswillberecognizedasreadilyachievablewithinclassroomdramabyexperiencedpractitioners.ThefirstistakenfromthefinalsessionwithSophie’sclass.Thechildrenwereincollectiveroleatthispoint,withhalfoftheclasstakingthepartoftheThiefandtheotherhalftheBrahmin.Iwasoutsidetheactionanddidnotspeak:Thief:Howwouldyoufeel?Ifwehadn’tstolen,thenwewouldn’thavehadanythingformyfamilyandallofmyfamilywouldbedead.Thief:Ifyougiveusacalfthenwe’llstopstealing.Brahm:Thevillagersmanageallrightdon’ttheyandtheydon’tsteal.Thevillagersarepoor.Thief:Yeah,butthey’vegotcalves.Thief:Andwecan’taffordit.Brahm:Whydon’tyougoandfindone?Thief:Becausecowsaresacred,youdon’tfindthemwanderingaroundeverywhere.Thief:You’renotsaying…thatwedon’thavetostealfromyouyoumeanwecangoandstealfrom?Brahm:WellBrahm:(muted)No…no…Brahm:111giveityouforaday…Thief:Oh,comeon…Brahm:Ploughyourfieldsyeah,andI’llcomeover,yeah,andseehowyou’redoing…andwe’lldecideaboutitthen. 100DRAMA,NARRATIVEANDMORALEDUCATIONThiswasthesectionofthedramawhichhadmostinfluenceonhowthechildreninthisclassdecidedtoconcludeit.Throughoutthisdiscussion,themoralambiguitywasconstantandwasresponsibleforholdingthedramatictension.Allargumentsputforwardwereessentiallyvalid(apartfromthesuggestiontogooutandfindacalf).Theoverallflowofargumentwaslogical,withthechildrenlisteningandrespondingtooneanother;butitwasn’talogicdetachedfromemotionalconcern.ThesectionopenedwitharequestfromtheThieffortheBrahmintoempathizewithhisfamily’ssituation;theargumentwhichfinallymovedtheBrahminamountedtoanotherappealforhimtolookbeyondhisowngoodfortune.ButtheBrahminwouldnotforgetthepreviousinjusticehehadenduredatthehandsoftheThief.HissenseofindignationdidnotdisappearwhenhebegantheprocesswhicheventuallyledtotheThiefkeepingthecalfforaperiodoftimeinordertoprovethathecouldbetrustedbytheBrahmintomendhisways.Sothewordsledtoanactionagreedbythechildreninrolewhichembodiedtheircautiousreassessmentofwhatmightpassforjusticeinthisparticularsituation.Thefollowingextract,somewhatlonger,isfromthesecondsessionwithMartin’sclass.Here,IwasinroleastheBrahminwiththechildrenasthevillagers.Brahm:Soishethreateningme?Ishesaying,‘GivemeacalforelseI’mgoingtostealsomething?’WhyshouldIlistentothat?That’snotgood.Vill:No!Vill:Heonlywantstobeyourfriend.Brahm:Heonlywantstobemyfriend?Sohecomesroundandtriestostealthingsfromme!Isthatthewaytobefriendlytosomebody?Vill:No,hewantstostartanewlife.Vill:Hewantsyoutohelphimaswell.Brahm:Welllook,Idon’tknowVill:Well,you’rebeingabitgreedywithtwo.Whydon’tyougivehimjustone?Brahm:I’mnotbeinggreedywithtwo!They’remine!Vill:Youshouldn’thavetwo!Youshouldhaveone!Brahm:WhyshouldIonlyhaveone?Vill:You’retoogreedy!Vill:‘Cosifyougivehimone,you’llstillhaveoneleft,won’tyou?Brahm:Doyouthinkthat’sfair?Vill:Yeah!We’reonlytryingtohelphim!Vill:Givehimacalf!Brahm:Isthatgoingtohelphimbeabetterperson?Vills:Yeah!Vill:He’llbehappyifyoudidthat.Brahm:He’llbehappyandabetterperson?Vill:He’sgotthreechildrenandhecan’tgetajobandheneedsfood.Vill:Andhecan’tgetanymoney.Brahm:WillIbeabetterpersonifIgivehimacalf?Vills:Yeah!Brahm:WhywillIbeabetterpersonifIgivehimacalf? THEBRAHMIN,THETHIEFANDTHEOGRE;DRAMAASPEDAGOGY101Vill:‘Cosyou’llbesharing.Vill:Youcouldsharewithhim.Brahm:Ifyouwereme,wouldyougivehimacalf?Vill:OfcourseIwould!Vills:Yeah!Brahm:ButI’llhavetoworkharderwithjustonecalf!Vill:Butifyouhaveonecalfandhehasonecalftheneveryonewillbehappy.ThechildrenhadarguedwithquitesomepassionandtheirlogicwasdrivenbytheirdesirefortheBrahmintotakeintoaccountthefeelingsanddesiresoftheThief(hewantstobeyourfriend;hewantstostartanewlife;he’llbehappyifyoudidthat).Themoralambiguityandhencethedramatictensionwasdifferentfromthatwhichfoundexpressioninthepreviousextract.AsBrahmin,Ibeganbyforcefullystatingmycasebutthechildren’saccusationsofgreedledmetosteertheconversationintoaninterrogationoftheirviewoffairness.TheycouldseethatthequestionsIbegantoposemightbeindicativeofanascentchangeofmindonmypart.Thisintensifiedthetension,andIhelditforaslongasIcould.Thesenseofmoralambiguityhad,therefore,shifteditsfocalpointtowithintheBrahminhimself.Thisthechildrenwerebothwitnesstoandcouldactuponthroughthepersuasivepoweroftheirwordswhich,onceagain,wereanchoredandenhancedbytheamountofcontextualdetailtheywereabletodrawupon.4.Drama,MoralEducationandthePracticeofVirtueInwhichofKohlberg’sstagesofmoraldevelopmentisthislatterextractbestunderstood?Consistently,thechildrenarearguingfortheethicalprinciplethatitisrightforthosewhohavetohelpthoseinneed.DoesthismeanthattheyhavereachedStage6,the‘EthicalPrincipleStage’?Conversely,isthewholediscussionbestseenasfosteringanidealisticandnaiveviewofhumanaffairs,evenonewhichissubversive,socialistandtypicaloftrendyMarxisteducationlecturers?Bothviewpointsare,Iwouldargue,erroneous.Themoralvalueandeducationalvalidityofthediscussionisbestappreciatedinmodestlanguageandwithinthechildren’srealsocialcontext.Thisgroupof8year-oldchildrenliveinadeprivedinner-cityareawherecrimeiscommon.Atleasthalfoftheclasshasbeendiagnosedashavingspecialeducationalneedsandmanyexhibitbehaviouralproblemsandsocialdifficulties.Theschoolworksveryhardatprovidingacaringandtolerantatmosphere,however,andatfosteringgoodcommunalrelationsamongthechildren.Thisdiscussionallowedthechildrentoapply,albeitinafictionalcontext,thevirtueofconflictmediationandtoargueforthevirtuesofgenerosity,fairness,forgivenessandcompassion,allofwhichareemphasizedbytheschool.InAristotelianterms,theywerebeingencouragedtopracticethevirtues.Justasmusicians…becomemusiciansbypractisingonthelyreandtheflute,so,saysAristotle,menlearnthemoralvirtuesbythepracticeofcourageandjustice.(Carr,1991,p.50) 102DRAMA,NARRATIVEANDMORALEDUCATIONTheroleschildrenaregivenandtheacts,includingthespeechactswhichtheserolesgenerate,holdthepotentialforthispractice.WithMartin’sclass,forexample,thechildrenremainedasvillagersformostofthedramabut,asvillagers,theylistenedwithsympathytothewife,disarmedtheThiefwhomtheythoughtwasabouttocommitaviolentact;offeredgiftsforhischildren;andpleadedforjusticetobedonetosomeoneotherthanthemselves.WheninroleasThiefandBrahmin,theypatchedupaquarrel;apologisedforpastwrong-doings;andgaveandacceptedgiftsgra-ciously.ThevariousrolesplayedbySophie’sclasstookthemthroughavarietyofsituationswheresimilardemandsweremadeofthemtodemonstratethevirtuesofunselfishness,sympathy,benevolence,kindness,generosityandcharity.Andthenatureofthesevirtuesis,initself,ofinterest.TheyareamongthosecitedbyCarrtoillustratewhathedefinesas‘thevirtuesofattachment(1991,p.200).Thesearevirtueswhereanemotionorfeelingorpassionisnotengagedinastrugglewithreasonbutisjoinedinalliancewithit:Thecorrectattitudesconsistofbelievingandcaringfortherightthingsinrespectofthegoodandwell-beingofothers’(ibid.,p.201).Onceagain,thefusionofthoughtwithfeeling,reasonwithcare,layattheheartofboththemoralandthedramaticprocess.InhisbookTheSaturatedSelf,KennethGergenundertakesananalysisofcontemporarypostmodernsocietyandproposesthatweneedtoreinterpretmuchofwhatwetakeforgrantedasreality.Amongsthisarguments,hepostulatesthatouremotionsaresomethingwelearntoenactonappropriateoccasions.DrawingupontheworkofpsychologistJamesAverill(1985),hedescribesemotionsas‘culturalperformances’andwrites:‘Wearenotdrivenbyforcesbottledupwithinus;ratherweperformemotionsmuchaswewouldactapartonstage’(1991,p.165).ThisargumentisadevelopmentofthecognitiveanalysisofemotionrehearsedinChapter5,whereitwasemphasizedthatemotionssuchasfearandlovehaveknownobjectsofattachmentandarequitedistinctfrommeresensation.Toemphasizetheculturallylearnednatureoftheperformativeaspectsofemotionistoindicatethatchildrenneedtolearnappropriatewaysofexpressingemotioninparticularcircumstances.Ifweacceptthisargument,thecaseformoraleducationthroughdramagainsaddedvalidity.Learninghowtopractisethevirtues,howandwhentodisplaytheemotionsassociatedwiththemwithinafictionalcontext,issimplyareflectionofhowchildrenlearnthevirtuesintheirsocialandculturalenvironments.ThisisapointsimilartoLipman’s,who,inhisinfluentialworkonteachingphilosophytochildren,emphasizedthatethicalactionsprecededethicalstates;inotherwords,thatethicalactionstendtodevelopcareandconcerninthosewhoperformthem.Inhiswords:Wecannotexpectchildrentobeconsiderateifwedonotgivethemopportunitiestolearnwhat‘beingconsiderate’isthroughallowingthemtopracticeinengaginginsuchconduct.(Lipmanetal.,1980,p.175)Thisdoesnotmeanthatchildrenwillautomaticallytransfervirtuousbehaviourrepresentedindramaintoparallelsituationsintheirreallives;butitdoesindicatethattheyneedthespaceandtheopportunitiestorehearsethemiftheyaretounderstandthem.Thevalueforbothchildrenandteacher,Iwouldargue,istheopportunitydramaoffersforexploringhowvirtuessuchasthoselistedabovecanbeappropriatelymanifested THEBRAHMIN,THETHIEFANDTHEOGRE;DRAMAASPEDAGOGY103inparticularcontextsandunderspecificcircumstances.Thepracticeofthevirtuesdescribedheretookplaceinapossibleworldwhichthechildrenhelpedcreate.Inthedramathereevolvedastorywhichbecameashared,communalexperience.Andjustastalesinanoralcultureprovideacommunitywithastockofstorieswhichembodysharedculturalandmoralvalues,socanstoriesdevelopedinthiswaybecomesharedreferencepointsagainstwhichaclassroomcommunityofchildrencan,withtheaidoftheteacher,gaugetheirownactionsandthoseofotherswheneversuchreferencesareneededonfutureoccasions.5.TheForceandMoralAmbiguityofSymbolicObjectsIcanrecallwatchingaprogrammebackin1980inwhichFrancisFordCoppoladiscussedthemakingofhisfilmApocalypseNow.HeexplainedhowhehadputaguninhiscoatpocketandwalkeddownabusyNewYorkstreettoexperiencewhatitwasliketocarryaweapon.Thefeelingofpowerwhichsurgedthroughhimhedescribedasawesomeandfrightening.ItisatruismtoremarkuponHollywood’sfascinationforweaponsingeneralandforgunsinparticular,certainofwhichhavebecomemythologized,suchastheMag-num44inDirtyHarryandthefamousautomaticrifleinWinchester73.Asdispensersofdestructionandviolentjusticeinthehandsofmenwholivebyviolence,theyarepowerful,uncomfortablyfascinating,morallyambiguoussymbols.ThemoralperspectivetheyofferusisbestsummedupbythewordsofAlanLaddinShane‘Agunisasgoodorasbadasthemanwhousesit’.AllenAhlberghaswrittenadelightfullycomicpoemforprimaryschoolchildrencalledTheCane(Ahlberg,1984).Withinitsirony,itrevealsasimilarfascinationexercisedoverchildrenbythissymbolofviolentjustice,particulartothemythologyoftheclassroom.Wehadnogunsinthisdrama,butwedidhaveastick.Arealone.Abigone.AstheBrahminintheopeningstory-tellingsession,IswungitbackovermyheadasIpreparedtoclubtheThiefwithit.Later,withMartin’sclass,whenactingthepartoftheThief,IapproachedtheBrahmin’scottageholdingit,tocreatethetensionthatImightbeabouttouseit.Iknewthiswasriskyanditwas.Asthechildren/villagerssurroundedme,someboysgrabbedthestickanddisarmedme.ThefearIthenexpressedastheThiefwasveryconvincingasthemetaxisatthispointwassoacute;therewaslittletodistinguishthefearoftheThieffromthefearoftheteacher.Andwhentheboysbrokeit,albeitaccidentally,thiseventbecameapowerfulmoralsymbolthatpermeatedtherestofthesessionandresonatedthroughouttheimagestheycreatedtoconcludethedrama.Forexample,theboy/Thiefwhobrandishedthestick,gleefullytellingtheboy/Brahmin‘I’vestillgothalfofit!’wasexperiencingsomethingofthevicarioussenseofpowerdescribedbyCoppola.Hewasalsoenjoyingthetensionofmetaxis.But,afterrevellinginthisheadymixture,hedroppedthestick.Withinthedramaticcontext,hehadchosentorejectthecreationofanimageofroughjusticeinfavourofoneofreconciliation;withintheclassroomcontext,heplayedwiththesubversiveenergyofthestickbutdisplayedself-controlandanunderstandingofthemoralcodeoftheclassroom.Inbothcontexts,therealityofthestickheightenedthetensionandhencetheforceofthemoralmetaphorsignifiedbyits 104DRAMA,NARRATIVEANDMORALEDUCATIONrejection.Toexpressthemeaningofthismetaphor,IamtemptedtoparaphrasetheearlierquotefromShane:‘Astickisasgoodorasbadastheboywhorefusesit’.6.‘HappyEverAfter?’:TheMoralResonanceofanEndingTheendingofastorydramaisassignificantastheendingofastoryforthevaluesresonatedwilllingerwithinus.Colby’sreferencetotheclosingimageofTheLifeandAdventuresofNicholasNicklebydrawsitsmoralmeaningfromAristotle’sideaofcatharsisandleavesuswithanimagewhichembodiesquestionsratherthananswers,abouttheextentofhumansufferingcausedbysocialinequalitiesandtheapparentlyunendingstruggleofthosewhowouldattempttoremedythisstateofaffairs.CarylChurchill’sTopGirlsleavesuswithanunresolvedargumentaboutpoliticalandsocialvaluesfollowedbytheimageofafrightenedgirlseekingcomfortfromthemotherwhohaseffectivelydisownedher.Again,itisanimagewhichposesquestions,inthiscaseaboutthecontradictorysocialandmoralpressuresfacingwomenincontemporarywesternsocietyastraditionalfemalerolesandvaluesarereassessedwithinasocialandeconomicstructurewhichmustinevitablyproducewinnersandlosers.Dramaisessentiallyaboutproblemfinding,notproblemsolving.Theactionmustfinishbut,inBakhtinianterms,falseattemptstofinalizeitshouldbeavoided.However,thereisanobvioustensionherebetweentherequirementsofadialogicalapproachandthe‘happyeverafter’conventionofthefairytalewhichdemandsresolutioninsomeutopianform.Moreover,ifweacceptthatempowermentisamajoraimofeducation,thenoneoftheaimsofmoraleducationmustsurelybetohelpchildrengrowintoasenseofresponsibilitybyconvincingthemthattheirethicaldecisionscanmakeadifferenceandthatsomearemorejustifiablethanothers.Inmoralissuestherearenopatanswersbut,fromanAristotelianperspective,therearebetterandworsewaysofliving.AndMacIntyreseesthisapproachtomoralunderstandingtobeattheheartoftragicdramawhenhewrites:Theremaybebetterorworsewaysforindividualstolivethroughthetragicconfrontationofgoodwithgood.And…whatthegoodlifeformanismayrequireknowingwhatarethebetterandwhataretheworsewaysoflivinginandthroughsuchsituations.(1981,p.224)TheconfrontationbetweentheBrahminandtheThiefwas,ofcourse,notatragiconebutitdidbringopposingviewpointsofwhatconstitutedgoodactionintoconflict.Throughthedrama,boththeBrahminandThief,andhencethechildren,couldlearnthattherewerebetterandworsewaysoflivingthroughthisparticularconflict.Morallearning,inthissense,wasnotdependentuponhowtheproblemwasfinalized,noruponhowthethoughtprocesseswhichinformedthisresolutionfittedalongsideahierarchyofmoralprinciples;ratheritdependedupontheopportunityitpresentedforthechildrentobe-comeincreasinglyresponsivetotheparticularitiesofindividualcases,tomoveforwarddespitethemoralambivalenceofthesituation. THEBRAHMIN,THETHIEFANDTHEOGRE;DRAMAASPEDAGOGY105Ihave,however,receivedsomeastutecriticismonthisparticularaspectofthecasestudy,whichIquoteinfullbelow.11Whatisthe‘morality’ofart?Itlies,notinupholdingaprioribeliefsabouthowpeopleshouldbehavebutintheintegrityofbeingtruetohowpeopledoandwouldincertaincircumstancesbehave.Hence,itseemedtomethatmanyofthealternativeendingstotheBrahmin/Thiefstorywerefalsetothecentralmoralityofthestoryitself,inthattheywere‘unbelievable’.TheThiefmustneedsbepunished(presumably),otherwisethievingbecomesacceptable,theBrahminneedstoacttodefendhimselfandhisproperty—afterall,theThiefhad‘agreed’thattheOgrecouldeattheBrahmin.Itistherethatthemoraldilemmalies—andmoredeeplyhowshould/could‘goodart’handlesuchmatters—havepoliticalcorrectnessorconventionalmoralityanythingtodowithitatall?Didtheseendingsconstitute‘badart’andisbadartincompatiblewithgoodmorality?Thisviewbegstheimportantquestionofwhatconstitutesthesocialfunctionofdramaanditsintendedaudiences.Thestoryusedhereofferedapre-textfordramatictransformation,notamoralblueprintforaestheticemulation,andinthedramathechildrenweredevisers,performersand,ofcourse,audience.Infact,thequestionmightbemorepreciselyphrasedas:inwhatsensewasthisdramameanttobegoodartandwhowasitmeanttobegoodfor?Norshouldtheunbelievablenatureofthechildren’sendingsbeautomaticallydepictedinanegativelight;forunbelievable,utopianendingsarewhathelpdefinethefairytaleasagenre.JackZipeshaswritten:Morethananyotheroralorliterarygenre,thefairytaleembodiestheutopiangestusofourlivesthroughthewish.BygestusImeanthewayourbehaviour,actionsandthinkinggesticulatetowardonegoal,andthisgoalisaplacethatwedonotknowconcretely.Itisnoplaceandyetabetterplace.Itisaplaceweknowintuitivelyandwecallitutopia.(1995,p.165)Itisdoubtlesstruethattheendingsdevisedbythechildrenshowedanoptimisticvisionofconflictresolutionatypicaloftheworldasweknowit;buttheywerenonethelesstruetothespiritof‘happyeverafter’whichthechildrenknewtobecharacteristicofthegenreinwhichtheyhadbeenworking.And,intheirdepictionofutopianconclusionstothetale,theyexpressedavisionwhereindividualhappinesswasdependentuponcommunalhappiness.Itisimportanttoremember,too,thatthechildrenweregivenboththeexperienceofthetaleandtheexperienceofthedrama.Theconclusionofthedramadidnotreplacetheendingoftheinitialtalebutconstitutedadialogicalalternativetoit,workingagainsttheinevitabilitymycriticimpliesasintegraltothestructureofthestory.Nordidthisresolutionnecessarilyleadthechildrentoseetheproblemasanythelesscomplex.InresponsetoaquestionIposedattheendofthedrama:‘IfyouwereLordVishnu,whatadvicewouldyounowoffertheBrahminand/ortheThief?’onechildwrote:‘IfIwereLordVishnuIwouldsaytotheBrahmin,“ThinkaboutwhattheThiefdidandwhyhedidit”’.Thesimplicityofthisstatementbeliesitswisdom.This9year-old 106DRAMA,NARRATIVEANDMORALEDUCATIONchildappearstounderstandthatthemoralmeaningsinstoriesarenotsimpleanddidactic,thatweappreciatethemthroughreflectionandeventuallymustfindthemwithinourselves.Inourpostmodernsociety,childrenfaceasaturationofstoriesinallkindsofgenresandnoone,dominantculturalsourcecanbesaidtoprovidethem.Thisconfusioncanonlybeexacerbatedbythefactthattelevision,videoandaudiocassettes,comics,magazinesandbooksdonotprovideanyopportunitiesforchildrentoengageinactivediscoursewiththeirmeanings,andhencewiththeirvalues.Assuch,ratherthanbeinginstructive,theyarepotentiallysomany‘invitationstoincoherence’,aphraseappliedbyGergentothepostmoderntechnologiesofsocialsaturation(1991,p.173).Incontrast,KirinNarayanhaswrittenofaHinduSwamijiwhoteachesthroughstorieschosenfortheirrelevancetoparticularaudiencesatparticulartimes.Thetext,’shecomments,‘Likeallfolknarratives,wasmalleabletotheteller’sconcernsandperceptionsofhisaudience’(1991,p.121).Workingwithstorythroughdrama,thevaluesbywhichchildrenarelearningtolivetheirlivesinthepresentcanbeinformed,clarifiedorguidedbyengagingwithand,inthiscase,transformingthestorieswesharefromthepast.Andinthecommunalityofthisprocess,wearepractisingwhatGergenseesas‘thebasisforapost-modern,relationalviewofmorality,inwhichdecisionsareviewednotasproductsofindividualminds,buttheoutcomeofinterchangeamongpersons’(1991,p.168).Notes1IamgratefultomycolleagueEleanorNesbittattheInstituteofEducationinWarwickforprovidingmewiththisandotherinformationonIndiansocietyandHinduculturewhichinformsthiscasestudy.DrNesbittisamemberoftheUniversityofWarwickReligionandResearchUnitandarecognizedinternationalexpertwithinthisfield.2ThisisexploredindepthinChapter8ofthethesis.3IamawarethattheconceptofarchetypesiscontentiousandwillusethetermthroughoutthisthesisinaccordancewiththemeaningofferedherebyNorthropFrye;andwiththatproposedbyCecilyO’Neillwhorefers,simplybutclearly,totheir‘generalizingresonance’(1995,p.36).Jung,fromwhomwederivetheterm,sawthemassomethingmuchmorefundamentalanduniversal.Forhimtheywere:‘psychicresiduaofnumberlessexperiencesofthesametype,experienceswhichhavehappenednottotheindividualbuttohisancestors,ofwhichtheresultsareinheritedinthestructureofthebrain,apriorideterminantsofindividualexperience’(Brodkin,1934,p.1).IdonotdeploytheterminanysuchinvariableoruniversalistsensebutacceptFrye’sthesisthatarchetypesareculturallylearned.AnnisPratt,inherworkonwomen’sfiction,providesadefinitionofarchetypalliterarycriticismwhichreflectsmyownunderstandingofthetermandasimilarlypragmaticapproachtoitsuse.Shewrites:‘onemustnotdeducecategoriesdownintoabodyofmaterialbutinducethemfromimages,symbolsandnarrativepatternsobservedinasignificantlyvariousselectionofliteraryworks.Iconceiveofarchetypalcriticismthus,asinductiveratherthandeductive,AristotelianinitsconcernwiththingsastheyareratherthanPlatonicinsuggestingthemasderivativesfromabsolute,universalconcepts’(1982,p.5).ThispragmaticapproachwithinthecontextoffolkandfairytaleswouldappeartobesupportedbytheworkofThompson(1977)whoshowshowarchetypalpatterns,inthissenseoftheterm,aredetectableinfolk-talesacrosscultures. THEBRAHMIN,THETHIEFANDTHEOGRE;DRAMAASPEDAGOGY1074ThisdevelopmentofchildhoodasadistinctphaseoflifeintheliberalwesterntraditionhasbeenthoroughlyexaminedbyAries(1979)andissupportedbyHoyles(1989).Hoylesinsiststhatchildhoodis‘asocialconstruction,notanaturalstate’.HeseesthisashavingbegunintheEuropeantownsofthelateMiddleAges,withthechangefromfeudalismtocapitalismandtheaccompanyinggrowthandinstitutionalizationofschooling.Theeighteenthcentury,inparticular,witnessedachangeintheconceptofchildhoodasastatecharacterizedchieflybyoriginalsintooneofweaknesswhichneededprotectionandofinnocencewhichneededtobepreserved.Rousseau’sEmilewastheliteraryworkwhichdidmosttoinstitutionalizethisviewwhich,ofcourse,persistsinmanytwentiethcenturyinfantclassrooms.SeealsoWalvin(1982).5ThemurderoftoddlerJamieBolgerinLiverpoolbytwochildren,aged10years-old,wasthoughtbysometohavepossiblybeeninfluencedbythisvideo,aswasthemurderofSuzanneCapperinStockport,Gr.Manchester,inDecember,1992.6ThisisanapproachdevelopedbyBairdSaenger(1993).7WithSophie’sclass,Idid,infact,askthemfortheirideasfirst.Iwasprovidedwithsixresponses:don’tsteal;don’tbegreedy;don’teatpeople;don’tbeselfish;learnhowtobekindtopeople;don’tbebador,intheend,it’llbetheworseforyou.8Themaths,ofcoursedoesn’taddup,therebeingfarmorerecordedresponsesthanifeachchildhadonlyrespondedthreetimes.Thisisunimportant.Iwasnotlookingforstatisticalaccuracy,simplyanimpressionofwhichmoralsthechildrenthoughttheycoulddetect.Byaskingthemtolimitthemselvestothree,Iwasencouragingthechildrentomakechoicesandnotrespondtoallofthem.9TheexpressionmoralpanicwasfirstusedbyStanCohenin1972todefineaprocesswhere‘acondition,episode,personorgroup…emergestobecomedefinedasathreattosocietalvaluesorinterests’.SeeBranstonandStafford,1996,p.312.10O’Toole(1992,pp.232–235)analysesthismomentverythoroughlyandarguesthatitsparticularsignificancewasdependentuponthemeaningthedramaachievedduetoitsrealcontext,ofawhiteandablackstudentmakingthismomenthappeninSouthAfricain1980.Hecomments:‘Theboywasmakingandparticipantsandonlookerswereactivelyaccepting,anethicalstatementofsignificanceintheirrealworld,highlightingwhatshouldbebypresentingwhatcouldnotbe,withinthepermissiongrantedbyfiction’(op.cit,p.234).11Thesecommentswerereceivedfromananonymousreviewerofasummaryofthiscasestudy.SeeWinston(1995). 108 Chapter9JackandtheBeanstalk:EthicalExplorationandtheRisksofCarnivalHumourTheStoryofJackandtheBeanstalk:CarnivalesqueorMoralQuest?JackandtheBeanstalkisoneofthemostpopularandwidelyknownBritishfairytales,withscoresofversionscurrentlyinprint,assinglevolumesandaspartofmoregeneralanthologies1.Itsorigininfolkloreisthoughttobeancientbutisveryunclear.AsPeterandIonaOpiepointout,abeanstalkreachingtotheheavensisreminiscentofJacob’sladderintheOldTestamentandoftheWorld-treeYggdrasilintheNorseProseEdda(1974,p.163).Despitethis,theearliestknownprintedversionisBenjaminTabart’sHistoryofJackandtheBeanstalk,PrintedfromtheOriginalManuscript,NeverBeforePublished,whichappearedinasixpennybookletin18072.TheOpiesseethisasthesourceofallsubsequentretellings,andthisclaimissupportedbyNeilPhilip(1992)withoneimportantexception.JosephJacobs’version,publishedin1890,wasclaimedbytheauthortooriginatefromanoralnarrationwhichhehadheardsomethirtyyearsearlierinAustralia.HavingcompareditwithotheroralversionsfromNorthAmerica,Philipconcludesthatitis‘alively,funny,suppletelling’,muchclosertothespiritoftheoriginal,oraltraditionthanisTabart’sand‘thestiff,chapbooktexts’whichemulatedit(1992,p.8).Thisclaimissignificantasstorieswithintheoraltraditiontendtocarryverydifferentmoralmeaningsfromtheirliterarycounterparts.Jacobs’versionhas,indeed,thewit,lightnessoftouchandjocularrhythmssharedbymanyoralfolk-talesand,importantly,itresemblestheminitsgeneraltoneofoptimismandfantasywish-fulfilment.Thereisalackofpsychologicalcommentinthenarrativewhich,intrueoralfashion,concentratesonaction,pepperedwithlivelybanterandbriskdialogue.Fromthiswedivinethenatureofthecharacters.Jackisverymuchthetricksterfigure,tobefoundinsuchtalesasJacktheGiantKillerandsimilartosuchanthropomorphiccharactersasAnanseintheAfro-CaribbeantraditionandBrerRabbitfromtheSouthernUnitedStates.Heischeerfulandquick-wittedthroughoutthetale,quicktoproposewaysofhelpinghismotherandwittyinhisresponsetotheoldmanwiththebeans:‘Iwonderifyouknowhowmanybeansmakefive?’‘Twoineachhandandoneinyourmouth,’saysJack,sharpasaneedle.(1993,p.66) 110DRAMA,NARRATIVEANDMORALEDUCATIONWhenthebeanstalkappears,heclimbsitwithoutreflectionorhesitation;nordoesheshowanyhesitationinstealingfromtheOgreorreturningforasecondtimeupthebeanstalk‘totryhisluck’(ibid.,p.69).Heis‘boldasbrass’whenhemeetstheOgre’swifeforthesecondtime,undauntedwhensheaskshimifheistheboywhostolefromherhusband.‘IdaresayIcouldtellyousomethingaboutthatbutI’msohungryIcan’tspeaktillI’vehadsomethingtoeat.’(ibid.,p.70)Onhisthirdreturn,heshowsagooddealofcunning,hidingoutsidethecastleuntiltheOgre’swifeappears,thenslippinginthroughtheopendoorand,unnoticed,onintothekitchen.Thistimehehidesinthecopper,nottheoven,thusevadingdiscoverywhentheOgreandhiswifelatersearchforhim.Attheendofthestory,theOgreisdispatchedswiftly,withawittyreferencetothenurseryrhymeJackandGill:Thentheogrefelldownandbrokehiscrownandthebeanstalkcametumblingafter.’(ibid.,p.72)Jackandhismotherbecomeveryrich,hemarriesaprincessandtheylivehappyeverafter—informationprovidedinasmanywordsinthefinalsentenceofthetale.Here,then,wehaveabrisktalewherehappinessisdefinedintermsofmaterialwealthandisachievedthroughoptimism,resilience,goodluckandopportunism.Theemphasisisonasatisfactorynarrative,withnohintofmoraldidacticismandnoneedtoexplainJack’sactionsintermsofmotivation,moralorotherwise.AsPropppointedout:Infolklore,reasons,ortousethelanguageofpoetics,motivations,arenotrequiredforactions….Itistheactionthatisprimary,notthereasonforit.(1984,pp.25–26)Ideologically,thereisnothingmorallyproblematicforapeasantcommunityinatalewhichrelateshowapoorboystealsfromawicked,wealthyogresothatheandhismotherdonotstarve.Firstandforemost,itisanentertainingtaleoffantasy,witandwishfulfilment,wheretheweaktriumphthroughintellectandcunning.Cunninganddeceptionarethetoolsoftheweakagainstthestrong,andthisconformstothemoralrequirementsofthelistener.(Propp,ibid.,p.28)PhilipisrighttoseeJacobs’textasagenuineoralversionofthetaleratherthanasarevised,literaryretellingbasedupontheTabarttext,astheOpiesclaimittobe.Tabart’sversionisverydifferentinmanyrespects.Itislonger,moreponderousanddescriptive,withverylittledialogueandmuchmorepsychologicalcomment.Thelightnessoftouchhasgivenwaytoamoresombre,moraldidacticism.Jack’smother,weareinformed, JACKANDTHEBEANSTALK:ETHICALEXPLORATION111…hadbeenawidowforsomeyears,andhadonlyonechildnamedJackwhomsheindulgedtoafault;theconsequenceofherblindpartialitywasthatJackdidnotpaytheleastattentiontoanythingshesaid,butwasindolent,carelessandextravagant.Hisfollieswerenotowingtoabaddispositionbutthathismotherhadnevercheckedhim.(Opie,1974,p.164)Theadmonishmenttotheparent,‘Sparetherodandspoilthechild’isbarelyconcealed.Jack’sdisobedience,signalledinthisopeningparagraph,islaterconfirmedwhenheclimbsthebeanstalkdespitehismother’sentreatiestothecontrary3.InordertoprovideJackwithmoraljustificationforstealingfromtheGiant,Tabartintroducesacharacterwhollyabsentfromtheoralversion;afairy,intheguiseofanoldwoman,whomeetsJackatthetopofthebeanstalk.Inastory,stretchingtotwopagesofclosely-printedtext,sheexplainshowawickedGianthadmurderedJack’sfatherwhenJackwasababy,robbinghimofhiscastleandallhispossessionsandforcinghismothernevertotellJackofhistrueidentity.ThefairyinformsJackthathehasbeenappointedtopunishtheGiantforallhiswickedness.‘Youwillhavedangersanddifficultiestoencounter,butyoumustpersevereinavengingthedeathofyourfather,oryouwillnotprosperinanyofyourundertakings,butalwaysbemiserable.AstotheGiant’spossessions,youmayseizeuponallwithimpunity;foreverythinghehasisyours,thoughnowyouareunjustlydeprivedofit….Remembertheseverepunishmentthatawaitsyouifyoudisobeymycommands.’(ibid.,p.169)NotonlyishegivenjustificationforstealingfromtheGiant,heissetthisasachallengetoobey,toatoneforhispastwilfuldisobediencethathasbeenhighlightedasoneofthemajorflawsinhischaracter.Aseriesofeditorialfootnotes,remindingthereaderofthefairy’scommand,permeatestherestofthetaleinordertojustifyJack’sfurtherascentsupthebeanstalk,astheymustsoevidentlyclashwithanygoodmother’swishesforthesafetyofherson.Attheveryendofthetale,whenthebeanstalkisdestroyed,thefairyreappearsinafinalfootnote.ShefirstaddressedJack’smotherandexplainedeverycircumstancerelatingtothejourniesupthebeanstalk.Jackwasnowfullyclearedintheopinionofhismother.(ibid.,p.174)AsforJack,heheartilybeggedhismother’spardonforallthesorrowandafflictionhehadcausedher,promisingfaithfullytobeverydutifulandobedienttoherinthefuture.Heprovedasgoodashiswordandwasapatternofaffectionatebehaviourandattentiontoparents.(ibid.,p.174) 112DRAMA,NARRATIVEANDMORALEDUCATIONInthisform,then,Jack’sadventuresupthebeanstalkhavenotonlybeenpresentedasatestofmoralcouragebuthavealsobeenclearlyframed,howeveruneasily,asalessoninobedienceandfilialduty.JackZipes’commentaryonthedistinctivetraditionofthenineteenthcenturyEnglishFairyTaleoffersanhistoricalexplanationforthetendencyofmanytobestridentlymoralisticintone(Zipes,1987).4ThefertilelegacyofmedievalEnglishfolklore,soevidentintheworkofChaucer,SpenserandShakespeare,wassuppressedunderthedominationofPuritanpoliticalpower,whichculminatedinthe‘GloriousRevolution’of1688.Puritancultureanditsphilosophicalheir,Utilitarianism,placedanemphasisonrationaljudgmentandChristianprinciplesandmistrustedtheimagination,particularlyinitsmorefantasticformsofexpression.Thus,whereasthefairytalewasabletoflourishineighteenthcenturyFrance,thosefewwhichmadetheirwayintopublicationinEnglandduringthesameperioddidsoonlywhentransformedintodidactictales,preachinghardworkandgoodbehaviour.WiththeemergenceofRomanticismattheendoftheeighteenthcentury,middle-classsensibilitiesbegantochangeandthefairytaleslowlybegantobecomemorewidelyacceptedwithTabart,infact,beingamongthefirsttopublishthemextensively.However,theCalvinistinfluenceremaineddeeplyentrenched,withinfluentialwriterslikeMrsSherwoodattackingfairytalesaslateas1820as‘animpropermediumforinstruction’(Zipes,1987,p.xvii).Asthefairytaleestablisheditselfasagenre,writerssuchasDickensandMacDonaldsawitsrealmoralpurposenotasinstructionbutasameansofnurturingchildren’simaginations,offeringalternative,utopianvisionstocounterthedrabutilitarianismofVictorianindustrialsociety.However,thetraditionofdidactictalesforchildrenremainedstrongandevenmajorwritersoffairytalessuchasGeorgeCruickshankcontinuedtoregardthemasvehiclesformoralteaching.HisversionofJackandtheBeanstalk,forexample,publishedin1854,transformedtheOgreintoadrunkardandthetaleintoadiatribeagainsttheevilsofalcoholism(Zipes,1987,p.37).Suchovertmoraldidacticismcharacterizedanotherpopularretellingofthetale,publishedbyAnneIsabellaRitchiein1868,andthistendencypersistedinthenumerousretellingswhichappearedinchapbooksandcheapanthologiesthroughoutthenineteenthcentury,allofwhichwerederivativeofTabart’sversion.RecentlypublishedversionsofJackandtheBeanstalkarenotsothoroughlyorself-consciouslymoralisticintheirtone,yettheinfluenceofTabartremainsstronginthecheaper,contemporaryretellingstobefoundinthenumerousfairytaleanthologieswhichappearregularly.5ThereasonsforthishavebeenamplyexplainedbyZipes(1993)withreferencetothetaleofLittleRedRidingHood.Anonymouschapbooks,oftenpresentedonsinglebroadsheets,wereapopularwayofmarketingfairytalesforchildreninthenineteenthcentury.Manyanthologiesdrewuponthesesourcesandstilldosotodaybecausetheyarecheapandinvolvenocopyright.Theseretellingswere,andstillare,printedpurelyforprofit,toexploitanexistingmarket,drawingtheirtextsandillustrationsdirectlyfromearlierpublications.Thereislittleauthorialreassessmentofthetalesand,assuch,theirvaluespersistintheretellings.Thevaluesemphasizedinthetraditional,pictorialrepresentationofJackcanbeusefullygleanedfromabookbyCooperEdens,whichhasgatheredtogetheranumberof JACKANDTHEBEANSTALK:ETHICALEXPLORATION113illustrationsfromanthologiespublishedbetween1888and1927.Thepicturesconsistentlydepictapre-pubescentJackwithlong,curly,blondehair,wideblueeyes,andinnocent,cherubicfeatures.Generallyheshowsnoemotion:evenwhileheclutchestheaxeandwatchesthegianttumbleheregistersonlymildshockandsurprise.Inonlyoneillustrationistheretheslighthintofascowl,ashewieldstheaxeandchopsdownthebeanstalk.TheimagesinwhichJackiscontextualizedarepervasivelynostalgic,embellishingthefairytaleworldwithpastoralsettings,attractiveoldcottages,colourfulcottagegardensandrich,darkinteriorsofthecastle.TheyarecongruentwithwhatZipeshasnotedinVictorianfairytalewritersas‘apsychologicalurgetorecaptureandretainchildhoodasaparadisaicalrealmofinnocence’(op.cit,p.xx).Suchimagesharkafterasimpler,pre-industrializedpastandJack’scherubic,almostpre-Raphaelitefeaturesavoidpainfulorunpleasantemotionatthesametimeastheyidealizethepre-pubescentboywhoseappearancecouldwellembodythefilialvirtueswhichresonatefromtheTabarttext.Thenostalgicappealtoparentsis,therefore,adoubleone,idealizingthefairytaleworldtheyrecallfromtheirownchildhoodandidealizingchildhooditselfintheimagesofthelittleboyitoffersthem.ThisrepresentationofJackasheroiccherubisatoddswiththeJackoftheJacobs’text.HerewehaveaJackmuchclosertothetricksterofJacktheGiantKiller,wilful,cheeky,sharpandcunning.Asubversivefigure,hefloutsauthority,takesrisks,causeshavocwheneverheclimbsthebeanstalkandalwayswinsthroughintheend.ThecomicpowerandethicalpositioningofthisJackcanbestbeunderstoodwithreferencetoBakhtinandhistheoryoffolkhumour,whichhedefinedastheCarnival,andtothecharacteristicsofthepicaresqueheroesofcomicdrama.BakhtindevelopedhistheoryoftheCarnivalinhislongstudyonRabelais.Fundamentally,hebelievedthatthespiritoftheCarnivalisoneofliberatingmockerythroughwhichofficialideologyandoppressivenormsandtabooscanbeparodiedandhencehumanized.Carnivallaughter,accordingtoBakhtin,canbedefinedas:‘aspecificethicalattitudetoreality’thatallowsnoidealto‘ossifyinone-sidedseriousness.’(Kelly,1992,p.47)ThespiritoftheCarnival,characterizedby‘inversions,parodiesanddiscrown-ings’(Dentith,1995,p.65),suffusesthetaleofJackandtheBeanstalk.Theyoung,thesmallandtheweakdefeattheold,thebigandthepowerful.TheGiant,parodyingtheabuseoffeudalpower,is‘discrowned’inmoresensesthanonewhenhefallsfromthebeanstalk.Thegrotesquerepresentationofthebody,amajorcharacteristicofCarnivalesquehumour,iscelebratedinthefigureoftheGiant,who,withhistantrumsandcannibalisticappetites,isasexaggeratedasanyofferingfromRabelais.ButJack,thetrickster,bothinhiswitandinhisactions,hascharacteristicsidentifiableinthepicaresqueheroesofearlyliteraryworks,suchastheSpanishLazarillodeTormes,andintheclassiccomicdramasofMolière,JonsonandCongreve.Charneyhasdefinedthecharacteristicsofthecomichero:heiscunning,resourcefuland‘couldneverconceivablybeovercomebythematerialforceshescorns’(1978,p.146);heissharp,witty,‘neveratalossforananswer’(ibid.,p.152);intruecarnivalesquefashion,heis‘theenemyofallabstractions,moral 114DRAMA,NARRATIVEANDMORALEDUCATIONprinciples,seriousnessandjoylessness’(ibid.,p.160).Furthermore,thetaleitselfusestheclassiccomicdevicesofdeceptionanddisguise,revellingintheeasewithwhichJackdece-ivesthegiantess,who,inturn,deceivestheGiant.ThetensionastheGiantsearchesinvainforJackisessentiallycomic,asistheironywhenheunwittinglyleavesallofhisrichesreadyforJacktorunoffwith.ThecomicspiritoftheCarnivalandofcomicdramaisidentifiablenotonlyintheformthetaletakesbutalsointhemoralmeaningsitconveys.IntheoralfolktraditionandtheCarnivalspirititembodies,conventionalmoralityisirrelevantandtaboosaresuspendedinfavourofutopianwish-fulfilment,imaginedthroughacomicexcessoffeastingandmaterialwealth.Theethichereworksagainstoppressive,socialagenciesinfavourofthetemporaryemancipationaffordedbylaughter.Similarly,comicdramadoesnotcelebrateconventional,socialandmoralnorms;ratherdoesitpokefunattheshallownessandhypocrisythatoftenaccompaniesthosewhopreachthem.Thecomicheroisonewhocanfloutauthorityandhighlight,throughhiswits,theblusterandstupidityofthepowerful.DarioFo’sManiac,wreakinghavocinapolicestationinMilan,isadistantcousinofJackwreakinghavocintheOgre’scastle.Theliterarytamperingswiththeoraltextwereboundtodestroythecomicspiritofthetaleassoonasitwastransformedintoavehicleforconventionalmorallessons.AsCharneypointsout:comedydoesnotarisefromwell-adjusted,middle-classpersons,decent,hardworking,sane,with…realisticgoalsandexpectations.(ibid.,p.170)Thecomichero‘nevertrulyfeelssorrow,guilt,compassion,oranyofthelegitimatetragicemotions’(ibid.,p.176).ThisiscertainlytrueoftheJackintheJacobs’text,butveryunlikeTabart’sJack,wherethecentralthemeishowheactuallycomestolearntofeeltheseemotionsinthecontextofhisrelationshipwithhismother.ThemoraloverlaysuppressesthelaughterasitconvertsJack’sodysseyfromananarchicadventureintoonewhichparadoxicallypraisesfilialdocility.MostcontemporaryretellingsofthetalelackthecomicenergyoftheJacobs’versionwhilstretainingresiduesofthenineteenthcenturymoralizingwhichseemspiousandinappropriatetomodernsensibilities.6AnotableexceptioncanbefoundinKevinCrossley-Holland’svolumeofBritishFolkTales.AlthoughtheauthoradmitstousingTabart’stextashissource,hegoessomewaytowardreintroducingthetoneandenergyofanoral,folknarrative,asthetitleofthebooksuggests.Theproseisdenseandresonantbutitsshortsentences,toneandrhythmsechothatoforalstorytelling.Jack,forexample,isintroducedasfollows:Whatadronehewas!Alie-abedandlounger,asugar-tonguedscrounger,ascattergoodwithoutathoughtforyesterdayortomorrow.(1987,p.118)LikeJacobs,Crossley-Hollandmovestheplotonquickly,issparingonpsychologicalcommentandmakesextensiveuseofsharpandwittydialogue. JACKANDTHEBEANSTALK:ETHICALEXPLORATION115SoJackdecidedtoclimbthebeanstalkagainandpayasecondvisittothegiant’smansion.‘Don’tthinkofit,’saidMartha.‘Iamthinkingofit,’saidJack.‘You’reafool,’saidMartha.(ibid.,p.126)Jack’smotherisfarfromtheweak,insipidfigureofTabart’stext.Sheisassertive,sharpoftongue,isactuallygivenaname,andhasthelastwordinthetale.Sothatwastheendofthegiant;andthatwastheendofthebeanstalk.‘Amen,’saidMartha.(ibid.,p.131)Whatmakesthisversionparticularlyinterestingisthetensionitachievesbetweenthedifferingmoralmeaningsoftheoralandliterarytraditions.Ontheonehand,itrestorestoJacksomeofhiscomicenergy,extendingittoincludehisrelationshipwithhismother,whichiscapturedintheirrepartee.ThespiritofthecarnivalispresentinhisanticsintheGiant’scastleandinthefigureoftheGianthimself,whoisgenerouslyandcomicallygrotesqueinhisappetites:Thegiantateamonstroussupper:vegetablestew,half-a-dozenloaves,andhalfapig,accompaniedbyasluiceofbeer.Andnow,’saidthegiant,‘I’llhaveoneofthosechildren…’(ibid.,p.129)Ontheotherhand,thecomedymanagestoembraceratherthanignoreJack’smoralflawsandthefigureofthegiant’swife,inparticular,isproblematized.Moreinthetwentiethcenturyspiritoftragi-comedy,sheispaintedasabulliedandbeatenvictimofherhusband’sviolence.OnJack’slastvisittothecastle:Theexpressiononthefaceofthegiant’swifehadchanged.Shelookedafraid.AndwhenatlastJackpersuadedhertotakehimin,shewasonlyabletolimpaheadofhim.That’llbetheend,’shesaid.‘Ifhecatchesme.’(ibid.,p.129)ThisretellingchoosestohintatmoralambiguityratherthanimposeamoralresolutiononthecontradictoryvalueswhicharethelegacyofTabart’sliteraryinterventions.Wishingtousethetaleasameanstoexploreratherthanavoidthesemoralambiguities,andtoharnesstheenergizingpotentialofitshumour,Ichosethisversionasthebasisforadramawithaclassof6and7year-oldchildrenwhowereusingthetaleofJackandtheBeanstalkattheheartofacross-curricularproject. 116DRAMA,NARRATIVEANDMORALEDUCATIONTheDramaofJackandtheBeanstalk:ExploringEthicsThroughComicPlayfulness…indrama,wearenotteachingtruths,butunteachingthem,tryingtoreinvestthecurriculumofcertaintywithuncertaintyandambiguity.(O’Toole,1995,p.80)TabartmanipulatedthestoryofJackandtheBeanstalkintoaparablemeanttoillustrateamoralrule,thecommandment:‘Honourthyfatherandthymother.’SuchruleshavebeendefinedbyHasteas‘thegrammarofsocialrelations’(1987,p.163).AccordingtoAristotle,rulesinethicsareimportantbutoflimitedvalue.Amongstatementsaboutconduct,thosethatareuniversalaremoregeneralbuttheparticulararemoretrue—foractionisconcernedwithparticulars.(citedinNussbaum,1986,p.301)Ruleshesawasguidelinesinmoraldevelopment,summariesofthewisejudgmentsofothers,goodforyoungchildrenwholacktheexperiencetohavedevelopedmoralpraxis,orpracticalwisdom.Whatisimportant,then,isforrulestoexistalongsideeducationalmeasureswhichattempttodevelopchildren’spowersofpracticalmoralwisdom.Storiesareideallysuitedforthislatterpurpose;toseethemasawayofenforcingrulesistomisunderstandtheirtruemoralpotential.ThedramaofJackandtheBeanstalkwasmeanttoembraceandexploretheambiguitieswhichtheCrossley-HollandversionhadinheritedfromtheTabarttextratherthatattempttoeradicatethem.Inseekingtodothis,Ienhancedtheplayful,comicspirit,makingitmoreakintotheJacobs’version,andmyanalysisofthedramawillconcentrateontheinteractionbetweenitscomicformanditsmoralcontent;andhow,Ibelieve,thetwoprovedtobecompatible.TheDramainSummaryTheschoolwassituatedinasemi-urban,villageareaofWarwickshire.Thechildrenweremainlywhite,fromamixtureofprivateandcouncilhousing,andhadsomelimitedpriorexperienceofeducationaldrama.Theirhalf-term’stopicwasplannedaroundthetaleofJackandtheBeanstalktostimulateworkinawiderangeofcurriculumareasandalsoinvolvedthereadingandtellingofdifferentversionsofthetale.TheteacherlearnedtheKevinCrossley-Hollandversionandtolditorallyinserialformoveranumberofdays.ShecompletedoneepisodewithJackclimbingthebeanstalkforthethirdtime.Forthesubsequentepisodes,dramatookoverasaseriesofthreesessions,eachofaboutfiftyminutesinlength.Thefactthattheyweredominatedbyteacher-in-rolewasaconsciousdecisiondeterminedbytheageandinexperienceofthechildren.Italso,ofcourse,allowedmetokeepaveryfirmgriponthedirectionthedramatook.AtthebeginningofthefirstsessionIintroducedthechildrentothebasiccostumeIwouldusetodenotethevariouscharactersfromthestory;ablackshawlandawalkingstickfortheoldwomanatthetopofthebeanstalk;ablueshawlfortheGiant’swife,and JACKANDTHEBEANSTALK:ETHICALEXPLORATION117soon.Forthechildrentofindentranceintothedrama,IdecidedtocastthemasfriendsofJackfromhisvillageandbeganthestorybynarratingthediscoverybyJack’smotherthathehadgonemissingforthethirdtime.Takingontheroleofthemother,Iaskedthemifanyofthemknewwherehemightbe.WhensomeofthemsuggestedhemighthavegoneupthebeanstalkIrepliedthatIdidn’tbelievethatashehadpromisedmefaithfullyhewouldneverclimbitagain.ButJackwasaboywhobrokehispromises,theytoldme.Theyallagreedthatbreakingpromises,especiallytoone’smother,waswrongandtheyvolunteeredtogoupthebeanstalkandbringhimbackhome.Beforetheydidthis,ImadethempromisenottolethimstealanymoremoneyfromtheOgre;itwastoodangerousand,besides,wedidn’tneedanymore.ThistheyalldidandInarratedtheirascentupthebeanstalk.Atthetop,intheguiseoftheoldwoman,IinformedthemthattheOgreusedtoblamehiswifeeverytimeanyofhismoneywentmissing,andsometimesevenhither.ThechildrenmadeasecondpromisenottostealanymoneythemselvesifItoldthemthewaytotheOgre’scastle.Iplayedthegiant’swifeasatimid,frightenedwoman,peeringthroughacrackinthedoor,andsaidthatIhadchasedJackandmimedshuttingthedoorintheirfaces.Thechildren,however,spottedanopenwindow,decidedthatJackmusthavealreadyclimbedthroughitandquietlydidthesame,makingtheirwayalongthecastlecorridorsandintotheOgre’skitchen.Thesecondsessionbeganwiththechildrenexploringthekitchen,lookingforplacestohideshouldtheOgrecome.IthentookonthecharacterofJackforthefirsttimeandnarratedmyappearanceoutofthespoutofakettle.Alongdiscussionensued.ThechildrenbeganbytryingtopersuadeJacktoleavestraightaway,whichIrefusedtodo.Playinghimverymuchasthetrickster,Iamusedthechildrenwithmyactionsandresponsesandtheclarityoftheirmissionbegantofadeassomeofthemvolunteeredtohelpmeescapewiththemoney.ThediscussionwasinterruptedbythearrivaloftheOgreandthechildrenallhidandremainedsilentwhileIshoutedandstampedandthencountedmymoney.WhentheOgrefinallyfellasleep,IstoppedthedramaandaskedagirltotakeontheroleofJackanddecidewhetherhewouldtakethemoneyornot.Hedid.ThefinalsessionbeganwiththechildrencreepingoutofthekitchenwithoutwakingtheOgre,onlytomeethiswifeinthecorridor.Myshriekofsurprise,inroleasthewife,awoketheOgreandItoldthemalltohidewhileIpersuadedhimtoletmemakehimsomehotchocolatesohecouldgobacktosleep.Thiskeptthechildrenfrombeingdiscoveredandtheydecidedtoshowtheirgratitudebyhelpingthewife.OnegirleventuallysuggestedthatweshouldtieuptheOgrewhilehesleptandthenmakehimpromisetochangehisways.Once‘captured’inroleastheOgre,Iscreamedandyelledandstruggledinvaintotheiramusementandsatisfaction.ThedramaendedwiththeOgre,beinglecturedastohow,andinwhatmanner,heoughttochangehisways.Thesesessionsareamongmyfondestmemoriesasadramateacher.Myfaithintheireducationalworthwaswarmlysupportedbytheclassteacherandhassincebeenreinforcedbytheresponsesofexperiencedfirstschoolteachers,withwhomIhaveusedthevideoedmaterialforIn-Servicework,andofamuchrespectedcolleaguewhohasusedsectionsofitforlectureanddemonstrationpurposes.Ibelieveitis,therefore,worthyofanalysisbut,withinthefollowingcommentary,Iaddressrelevantcriticalquestionsthathavebeenposedbythosepractitionerswhohaveseenandcommentedonthematerial. 118DRAMA,NARRATIVEANDMORALEDUCATIONTolookatimprovisededucationaldramaasmoralpedagogythroughthefilterofcomedyposesanumberofproblems.Literatureondramaineducationseldommakesmorethanpassingreferencestocomedy;andcomedyitselfisseenbymanyinfluentialtheoristsasessentiallyamoralinitsnature.Langer,forexample,pointstowhatsheseesasMeredith’sfailedattemptstopromotetheethicalnatureofcomedy:‘Inhisveryeffortstojustifyitsamoralpersonagesheonlyadmittedtheiramoralnatureandsimplerelishforlife’(1953,p.345).Whereascomediesgooutoftheirwaytoassureus,throughahappyending,thatthegoodwilltriumph,Charney(1978)suggeststhatvirtuegetslittleplayintheactionofthedrama:andconcludesthat:‘witoutshines,outstripsandoutperformsgoodnessandthecomicactionremainsessentiallyamoral’(op.cit.,p.59).Moreover,inasmuchasthesehappyendingsdoexpressvalues,theyareessentiallyconservativeandreflecttheendsofsociety.AsBenJonsonsawit(orsaidhesawit),thepurposeofcomedyistopurgesociallyunacceptabebehaviour;or,inthewordsofNorthropFrye:‘Thesocietyemergingattheconclusionofacomedyrepresents…akindofmoralnorm’(1965,p.147),—meaningthatharmony,commonsenseandcivilizedbehaviourmustberestored.Theheroofclassicalcomicdramamaywellcockasnookatconventionalsocialmoralitybut,attheendoftheplay,heisreabsorbedintothedominantsocialframework.Thesocialconservatismofclassicalcomedyis,accordingtoO’Toole,atoddswiththemoreanarchiccomedyofthefolktradition.Classicalcomedyoperatesatthe‘rule-fixing’endofthecontinuumofartandplay;thekindofcomedywhichemanatesfromtheother,‘exploratory’endoperatesbycallingthoseveryrulesintoquestion,andgivesadiscomortingexperiencewhereanarchy,immoralityandmisrulearetemporarilyvalidated,andmaybeleftso.(1992,p.153)Herethecarnivalspiritisdefinedasessentiallyamoral,withnopromisethatanykindofsocialormoralorderwillberestored.Despitethis,itiswithreferencetothistraditionoffolkcomedyanditsmanifestationinbothtraditionalandmodernformsofparticipatorytheatre,thatmostlightcanbecastnotonlyonthecomicrepresentationofJackandtheOgreinthisdramabutalsoontheirpotentialasagentsformoraleducation.Jackas‘Joker’Traditionalfolkdrama,suchastheCoventryHoxTuesdayDramaortheCheshireSoulingPlay(Pegg,1981,p.107)islooserandmoreparticipatoryinformthantheclassicalorbourgeoistheatricaltraditions.ThenarrativesareoftenscriptedbutalwaysfeatureacharactersuchastheDerbytupp(inCoventry)ortheWildHorse(inCheshire)whosefunctionistocausehavoc,particularlyamongspectators,chasinggirlsandgenerallymakinganuisanceofitself.Sometimesthischaractermightbehumaninform,suchasTosspotinthePaceEggplayofWestYorkshire,andthusbefreetoimproviselines,drawinthespectatorsandgenerallysubvertthenarrative,atraditionwhoseinfluencepartiallypersistsinstagepantomime.Thediscomforting,subversiveandcomicallyprovocative JACKANDTHEBEANSTALK:ETHICALEXPLORATION119natureofsucharoleisanalogousinspiritwithJack,thetricksteroftheoralfolktale,andisreminiscentofthemedievalgiullare,inspirationaltothetheatricalpracticeofDarioFo:Thegiullarewasthestreetperformerofhisday,thebuskeroftheMiddleAges,withsomethingincommonwiththeShakespeareanFool,butnothingatallwiththearistocraticpetwhowastheCourtJester.Ofhisveryessencehewasthepeople’sentertainer,butalsothepeople’sspokesman,givingsatiricalvoicetoresentmentsfeltbyordinarypeopleagainstauthority.(Farrell,inFoandRame,1992,p.6)Theroleofthe‘Joker’inBoal’sForumTheatreperformsasimilarfunction.AlthoughtheJokerismoreafacilitatorthanajester,hispurposeistoengineerthesubversionofsociallyandmorallyoppressivenarrativesbyencouragingtheaudiencetomovefromthepositionofpassivespectatorstomoreactivespect-actors.Assuch,oneoftherolesheadoptsisthatofdevil’sadvocate,disturbingthespect-actors’receivedvaluesinordertochallengetheirthinkingandempowerthemintoenlightenedformsofaction.ItisthespiritmanifestinthedramaticfunctionofthesedistinctbutrelatedroleswhichcanbestenlightenthenatureofmyrepresentationofJack,comicinformbutseriousinintention.Forthechildren,thedramawasframedintheformofamoralquest.Tabart-likeintheircertainty,theyweredispatchedtocarryoutthemother’sparentalwishes,toensurethatJackwouldreturnandkeepthecommandmentswhichforbidstealing,lyinganddisobedience.Rulestoguidemoralbehaviourareanimportantfeatureinthelivesofyoungchildrenandareparticularlyevidentininstitutionalized,socialenvironmentssuchastheclassroomandtheschool;and,throughthepromisemadetoJack’smother,theywerebeingrequestedtotakeonarolewhichwouldinvolvetheenforcementoftheserules.WhenIenteredinroleasJack,therewasnomistakingthefocusortheseriousnessoftheirmission:Girl:You’vegottocomedownnow!Jack:I’vegottocomedownnow?Whosays?Many:Yourmum!Jack:Mymumsays?Boy:Youhaven’tgotanytimetostealthingsyetGirl2:Likethemoney…Girl3:You’renotallowedtostealanythingJack:Whatareyousaying?Boy:Youmustgodownnowbecauseyourmum’stoldyouto!Children,however,havetheirownprivate,socialcodes,whichcanemphasizeadifferentsetofvirtues:loyaltytoone’sfriends,couragedisplayedthroughrisk-takinganddares,quick-wittednessandasenseofhumour,theabilitytodeceiveauthorityandhenceavoidtrouble.7Theseareoften,bytheirverynature,conflictualwithconventionalrulesofmoralbehaviour.Itwasthesequalitiesofthe‘streetwisekid’thatIwasattemptingtorepresentintheroleofJack,playinghimastrickster,rebel,thesubversivebutlikeablerogue.Mycostume—baseballcapworninreverse—immediatelysignalledthis,asdidmy 120DRAMA,NARRATIVEANDMORALEDUCATIONcheerfulbanterandmyhigh-statusposturing.8playedtricksonthechildrenandhadlotsofverbalfunwiththem.ToapplyMacIntyre’sconceptofvirtuesandvicesembodiedinsocialroles,ifJackasachildwasdisobedient,cheekyanddishonest,asafriendhewas,incontrast,funnyandclever;andasson(tohisfather,ifnottohismother),hewascourageousinseekingtoavengehisfather’sdeathandreclaimhisandhismother’srightfulinheritance.AjustificationforthisinterpretationofthedramaticimpactofJackcanbefoundincommentsmadebythechildrenoutsidethedrama,inadiscussionwiththeclassteacher(seeAppendix1).ThechildrenwereaskedwhytheyhadriskedgoingupthebeanstalktofetchJackandrespondedthatJackwastheirfriend,thathewasbrave,strong,playedgoodgamesandthathewasfun.Whenaskediftherewasanythingnotsogoodabouthim,theyhadmanysuggestions:hebrokehispromises,waslazy,toldlies,tookbackthingswhichdidn’tbelongtohim,didn’ttellhismummywherehewasplayingandusedbadlanguage.Twoconclusionscanbedrawnfromtheseresponses.Firstly,thesechildren,asagroup,wereveryclearandarticulateaboutthebasicconceptsofrightandwrongandcouldeasilyrecognizevirtuesandvicesinactionwithinspecificsocialcontexts.Secondly,theyshowthattheJackofthedramahadimpacteduponthemasmuchastheJackofthestory,interweavingwiththeirownideasofwhatmadeagoodfriendandanaughtyboy.Thelastthreeexampleslistedabovecamedirectlyfromthestorywecreated:fromourdiscussionastowhethereverythingthegiantownedhadbelongedtomyfather;frommycomplaintsaboutJackinroleashismother;andfrommyuseoftheword‘bum’!Jackmadeapowerfulimpactuponthechildreninpartbecause,althoughatthecentreofthedramaticinterestfromtheoutset,hisactualappearancewassubstantiallydelayed,astrategyusedtogreateffectbyMolièreinTartuffe.Allofthecontributionsmadebythecharactersthechildrenmetalongtheway—hismother,thewomanatthetopofthebeanstalk,theOgre’swife—performedthedualfunctionofreinforcingthechildren’smoralmissionandbuildingaconsistentexpectationofwhatJackwouldbelikeoncehedidappear.WhenItookontheroleofJack,Iworkedtoconfirmratherthandenythisexpectationandusedhumourtosubvertthemoralhighgroundfromwhichthechildrenbegantheirdialoguewithme.Afewminutesintothescenewehadthefollowingexchange:Jack:SowhatareyougoingtodoifItellyouI’mstayinghereuntilthatOgrecomesandthen,whenhefallsasleep,I’mgoingtostealsomethingoffhim?(Spokenasadare)Whatareyougoingtodo?Boy:We’regoingtotellyourmother.Jack:You’regoingtotellmymum,areyou?Boy:Yeah!Jack:ThatIwouldn’tdoasshesays?ThatIwouldn’tcomedown?Allright!(addressinganotherboy)Whatareyougoingtodo?Boy2:Erm,I’llhelpyoucarrywhatever…Jack:Oh,you’regoingtohelpme,areyou?Girl:Yeah,soamI! JACKANDTHEBEANSTALK:ETHICALEXPLORATION121Many:Andme!SoamI!Many:I’mnot!BybringingalivethesubversivecharismaofJackandbyhavingitinteractwiththechildreninrole,Iwasabletostirupdissentinordertoreplicateapictureofthemoralconflictswithinchildren’slivestruerthanisportrayedintheTabarttext.Inotherwords,Iturneda‘rule-fixing’textintoanexploratoryone.Byadoptingthisstance,Iwasthenabletoencouragethechildrentoreflectupontheirmoralpositioningalthough,inthespiritofcomicplayfulness,thiscouldtakeanunexpectedturn.Jack:Allright,thosepeoplewhoaren’tgoingtobreaktheirpromisetomymum,Iwanttoknowwhynot.Boy1:Becausewe’llgettoldoff.Jack:Becauseyou’llgettoldoff?Boy2:Andsowillyouwhenyougetdownthere.Jack:(cocky)Icanhandlethat.Boy2:Youcan’t.Jack:MaybeIcan.Boy1:Youmightnot.Jack:MaybeIcan.Girl:(waggingherfinger)You’llgetasmackedbum.Jack:MaybeI’mnotscaredofasmackedbum!(Burstofgenerallaughter)Thechildren’slaughterherepointstoanotherwaythroughwhichthecarnivalspiritwasworkingtoenergizethisdrama;thatis,throughthetensionofmetaxisgeneratedbythedeliberateinversionoftheroles,inbothamoralandasocialsense.Theteacher/adultwasplayingnaughtyboywhereasthechildrenwerethevoiceofconventionalmoralauthority.Asaresult,I,theteacher,wasempoweredtosaydeliberatelynaughtythings;whereasthey,thechildren,wereliberatedtospeaktomeasanequalorevenscoldmefromamorallysuperiorposition.ThustheoverridingtensionwithintheformofthedramawhenthechildrenwerewithJackwasbothcomicandmoralatoneandthesametimeandthedialogicalexchangescouldtakeonthepaceandmoodofcomicrepartee.Jack:Well,Ididn’tmakeapromise.Girl:Cosyouneverkeeppromises.Jack:WhosaysIneverkeeppromises?Boy1:Andyoulie!Jack:WhosaysIlie?Boy2:YouliedtotheOgre!Jack:Well,he’sarottenOgre.I’veneverspokentothatOgre,anyway.Boy3:Youliedtoyourmum.Jack:(flustered)WhatdidIsaytomy…Ineverliedtomymum!WhendidIlietomymum?Many.(intriumph)Yousaidyouwouldn’tgoupthebeanstalkandyoudid! 122DRAMA,NARRATIVEANDMORALEDUCATIONItisadramaticasmuchasamoralnecessitywhichenergizesthisshortexchange,illustrativeasitisofthekindofcompetitivestatusgamedescribedbyO’Neillasafrequentfeatureofthiskindofimprovisedevent(O’Neill,1995,p.16).But,toparaphrasetheearlierquotefromCharney,herewitdoesnotoutperformgoodness;inthechildren’seyes,theirwitoutperformsJack’sandhisattempttocoveruphislies.Thespiritofplayisstrongherebutfortheteacheritprovidesforadevil’sadvocatestyleofrole-taking,longrecognizedbydramateachersasavaluablewayofcreatinglearning(Booth,1994,p.82;Neelands,1984,p.36).Whatisnotgenerallyrecognized,however,ishowclosesuchanapproachistothecarnivalspirit.InBakhtin’swords:Thetemporarysuspension,bothidealandreal,ofhierarchicalrankcreatedduringcarnivaltimeaspecialtypeofcommunicationimpossibleineverydaylife.(Bernstein,1981,p.106)AccordingtoBernstein,thisinvolves:alooseningofthecodesoflinguisticdecorumandanewreadinesstomingleformsofaddressandspeechotherwisekeptstrictlyapart.(op.cit.,p.106)ThistemporarysuspensionofhierarchicalrankwasattheheartofthemoralambivalenceofteacherinroleasJackbutthedramaticandeducationalfunctionsremainedhighlyethical,intendedtoensurethatthechildrenweregivensufficientopportunitytoexplorethemoralcomplexityofthesituation.UsingBeckerman’sterminology,Jackrenderedtheactiondialecticinnature,openingoppositionalempathicalignmentsnot,perhaps,withineachindividualchildbutcertainlywithinthegroupcommunitytheywereeachapartof.Andattheheartofthisactionwasanissuethatwentbeyondwhetherthechildrenshouldsimplyobeyrulesandauthority;itcoveredquestionsofresponsibilityforone’sactions,particularlywhentheseactionscanleadtoothersbeingharmed.‘Responsibilityforselfandothers’isdefinedbyGilliganasoneofthesixcomponentsofanethicofcare(Brabeck,1993,p.37)andherethe‘other’gainedparticularformintheroleofthegiant’swife.Childrenareusedtocomicalimagesofgrotesqueviolencefromsuchsourcesascartoons,PunchandJudyshowsandfairytalecharacterssuchastheOgreofthistale.Iftheviolencesufferedbythewifewastobetakenseriouslybythechildren,however,ithadtobeplayedassuch.Consequently,shewasnotrepresentedasacomicfigure.Herstatusasvictim,hintedatinCrossley-Holland’sretelling,wasemphasizedinthisdramafor,asthepreviouscasestudyillustrates,suchrolestendnaturallytodrawoutasympatheticresponsefromchildren,activatingtheother-regardingemotionsofsympathyforthevictimandindignationatheroppressor.Thissympathywasheightenedinthethirdsessionwhenshealsoperformedhernarrativefunctionofhelper,9savingthechildrenfrombeingfoundbytheOgre.AsJack,Iwasabletoplayagainstthissympathyandhenceencourageitsarticulation: JACKANDTHEBEANSTALK:ETHICALEXPLORATION123Jack:Idon’tlikethatOgreandIdon’tlikehiswife,soIdon’tseewhyIcan’ttakewhatIwantfromhere.Haveyoumethiswife?Boy:Hiswife’snice!Jack:Putitthisway,ifItakethemoneyfromthisOgre,itdoesn’thurtanybodyapartfromtheOgreandhe’shorrible.Girl:Yesitdoes!Ithurtsthewife!She,unlikeJack,wasanunambiguousoriconicfigure,andthedesiretoprotectherfromharmwasalwaysapttobearticulated.Attheclimaxofthechildren’smeetingwithJack,therewasadramaticmomentwhichillustratedthis:Jack:(confused)SoshouldItakethemoneyorshouldn’tI?Many:Should/shouldn’t(onegirlsayssomethingwhichonlyIhear.Isilencethechildrenandaskhertorepeatittothewholegroup)Girl:Idon’tthinkyoushouldbecausealltheOgrewilldoishithiswifeagain.(Pause.Silence)Jack:(provocatively)AndIthoughtyousaidshewasanicewoman.ThegenerallyagreedreasonwhyJackshouldnotstealthereforebegantoshiftfromthefearofpunishmentexpressedintheearlierexchangetothealtruisticvirtuesofcompassionforsomeonewhohadactivatedthechildren’sorecticpotential,virtuesconsistentwithGilligan’sethicofcare.Ofcourse,thiswasneverdebatedinsuchabstractterms,buttheconflictingmoraldemandstheyengenderedarewhatdrovethedramaticnarrative,gainingphysicalactualitythroughtherepresentationofthecharactersandtheiractions.10Bakhtin’stheoriesofthecarnivalandofthedialogicalfunctionofthenovelarerelatedinasmuchastheyarefundamentaltotheworldviewhepromotes,wherehumanexistenceisa‘mixtureofstyles,anirreducibleheterogeneity’(citedinTodorov,1984,p.80).Inthesecondsession,ImanipulatedthedramasothatthecaringvirtuesofattachmentcouldbeconsideredbutIdidnot,inthemannerofTabart,imposearesolutionwhereittriumphed,asillustratedbythefactthatachild,enactingthepartofJack,stillfeltthathewouldtakethemoneyandflee.WhatIdiddo,however,wastoensurethatitcameintoadialogicalrelationshipwiththerule-drivenethicoftheTabarttextandensureitwasaddedtothepolyphonyofvoiceswithinthedramaticnarrative.‘Carnival,’writesHolquist,‘likethenovel,isameansofdisplayingotherness:carnivalmakesfamiliarrelationsstrange’(1990,p.89).TohavekepttheviolentrelationshipbetweentheOgreandhiswifeonthelevelofthegrotesque,comicstyleofPunchandJudymayatfirstseemtobeamorecarnivalesquethingtohavedone;paradoxically,thisisnotthecaseasitwouldhavedetractedfromthemulti-voicednessofthedramaandhencerendereditlessambivalent,andsolessprovocativeandlesscapableofproducingdisturbance.HereitisworthreconsideringBakhtin’santipathytowarddramaasaninherentlymonologicalartform,brieflydiscussedinChapter6.Pecheyargues,however,thatwelearnfromhiswritingsthatBakhtinisreferringrestrictivelyto‘pureclassicaldrama’(1989,p.58)andthatthisposition,too,isahighlycontentiousone: 124DRAMA,NARRATIVEANDMORALEDUCATIONDramaisperhapsnotsomuchmonologicalasmonologisedbybeingreadas‘literature’ratherthantheatre.(ibid.,p.61)Inparticular,PecheypresentsBrechtiantheatreasa‘radicallynoveliseddrama—dialogisedindeedtothepointofpolyphony’(ibid.,p.58).Bakhtinhimself,Pecheypointsout,notedBrechtasarepresentativeofthe‘realistgrotesque’which‘reflectsattimesthedirectinfluenceofcarnivalforms’(ibid.,p.58)andadds:ThetypicalrolesofBrechtiantheatreare…therogue,theclownandthefool;imagesofinfiniteirresolutionaseverythingtheydoorsayisfraughtwithdialogicalambiguity.(ibid.,p.59)Inthissense,thedramawasBrechtianinnatureand,ifJackhadbeenbothrogueandclownthentheOgrewastobethefool,albeitaveryfrighteningone.TheOgreGiantsareamongthemostrecognizablefiguresofthecarnivaltradition,stilldominatingnotablyfamouscarnivalprocessionstoday,suchasthosewhichtakeplaceonShroveTuesdayinbothBelgiumandinNice.Similarly,giantsandogresareanintegralpartofEuropeanfolklore,proliferatinginfolkandfairytales,althoughtheoristsdisagreeastotheirsymbolicsignificance.Bettelheimarguesthat,forchildren,theymayrepresentadultsingeneral:‘We…appeartothemasselfishgiantswhowishtokeeptoourselvesallthewonderfulthingswhichgiveuspower’(op.cit.,p.27).HisFreudianreadingofJackandtheBeanstalkidentifiestheOgreas‘thefatherwhoblockstheboy’soedipaldesires’,afigureuponwhich‘theoedipalboyprojectshisfrustrationsandanxieties’(ibid.,p.114).Thechildneedstoovercomethegiantatasymbolicleveltogrowupintoasecureadult;and,ofcourse,theparticularimportanceoffairytalesforBettelheimistheiruniqueabilitytofulfilthatpsychologicalneed.ForZipes,ontheotherhand,giantsarefiguresofsocio-politicalratherthanpsychologicalimportance.Takinghisperspectivefromtheculturalevolutionoffolk-tales,giants,forhim,representthetyrannyandinjusticeofbruteforceandpoliticalrepressionwhichcannonethelessbeovercomethroughcommunalandindividualdemonstrationsofbravery,witanddecisiveaction(Zipes,1979).Boththeoreticalapproachesgosomewaytowardsprovidinganunderstandingofthesymbolicfunctionandmoralsignificanceofthegiant/ogrewithinthisdramainasmuchastheyidentifythesymbolicempowermentofchildrenwithhisdefeat.Viewedasanarchetype,thespecificcrimesoftheOgreareirrelevant;heissimplyevilandmustbeovercome.Inourdrama,however,hisdefeathadmorethanarchetypalsignificance.Hiscrimeswerehistoricallyspecificanditwasthetwinother-regardingemotionstheyprovoked—sympathyforhiswifeandindignationathisviolentbullying—whichenergizedthefinalconfrontation.InmyrepresentationoftheOgre,IwasinfluencedbyDarioFoanddramaticcreationssuchasPopeBonifaceVIII.11Iemphasizedhisgrotesquequalitiesinspeech,gesture,gaitandaction.Hewasmonstrousbutalsocomicallyridiculousand,aboveall,hewasexcessive—countingahugebagofgold,kissingthehugecoins,shoutingbothinangerand JACKANDTHEBEANSTALK:ETHICALEXPLORATION125pleasure,stompinghisfeetanddisplayingsignsofenormousappetiteandgreed.Inthissense,hewastheantithesisofAristotle’sdoctrineofthemean.Theconductwhichconducestothewell-beingofmeninhumansocietyisthatwhichexhibitsreasonablemoderationandavoidsunreasonableextremesofactionandpassion.(Carr,1991,p.54)Therewasmuchcomictension,asthechildrenstayedquietlyhiddenandwatchedandlistenedtomygrotesquedisplayofappetiteandevil.And,althoughcomic,therewasarealthrilloffearintheirfacesastheygrippedontoeachotherintheirvarioushidingplaces.IonaOpiehaswrittenoftraditionalchildren’sgames,persistingaspartofourfolktradition,which,assheputsit,‘seemtosatisfyadeepdesireforvicariousfearexpressedindramaticform’(1995,p.32).Inthisdramatizedversionofhideandseek,Iwasabletoharnessthisdesire(perhapsitselfanotheraspectofcarnivalesqueambivalence)tocreateatensionwhichallowedthechildrentoparticipatesafelyintheexperienceofhisevilpower.Thisimageofarampaging,dangerousbullywasinmarkedcontrasttotheimageinthefinalscenewhere,‘tied’toachair,Iwasforcedtolistenandrespondtotheirharanguing.Transcribedreferencesfromthisscene—notablyandsignificantlyfromthegirls—revealthatthisgrotesquerepresentationofviolent,maleaggressioncoupledwitharrogantlazinesswasonetheycouldrecognizeandwhicharousedtheirmoralindignation.Girl:Youshouldbeanicegiant,befriendlysoyoudon’thavetohityourwife.Lookatallthejobsshedoesforyou!Andyoudonothing.Youjustsitaroundandcountyourmoney.Youdonothing,justtellthehentolayandtelltheharptosing.Girl2:Imagineifyouwereyourwife,ifyoukeptdoingallthework.Youwouldn’tlikeitifyouhadtodoitallthetime.Girl3:Youjustleaveyourwifealone.Shedoesn’thurtyou.Hisexcessivenesswaswhatthechildrenenjoyedbuttheyhadthesatisfactionnotonlyofoverpoweringthebullybuttheadditionalchallengeoftryingtotransformhimbytellinghimwhyhisbehaviourwassounacceptable.Thedramaendedwiththemonceagaininpossessionofthemoralhighgroundbutthistimenotintheroleofmessengersofparentalauthoritybut,withinthefictionatleast,astheirownagents,actinginresponsetotheeventsofthestoryastheyhadunfoldedandthepossibilitieswhichI,asteacher,hadbeenabletointerweaveintothedrama.Inthissmallbutsignificantway,thefigureofthegiantwasabletoofferthepossibilityofmoralempowerment;byarousingthechildren’sindignation,hecouldstirthemintofeelingandarticulatingethicalvalueswhichwerealreadydeepwithinthem.AswiththerepresentationofJack,however,thedramaticenergyofthisscenewasredoubledbytheaddedtensionofmetaxisanditscarnivalesqueimplications.NotonlywasthefairytaleOgredefeatedbutthisdefeathadphysicalembodiment,beingrepresentedthroughthegestures,gait,inshortthebodyofanadultmale.Furthermoretherewastheadded,anarchicthrillofthetraditionalclassroomOgre,theteacherhimself,beingsymbolicallydisempoweredandsufferingfromchildrentheharanguingandthe 126DRAMA,NARRATIVEANDMORALEDUCATIONscoldingwhichitisnormallyhisroletodeliver.Thisplaywithpowerisriskywithintheclassroombutinitsriskinessliesitspotencyasdramaandaseducation.Herewasperformedacontrolled,carnivalesqueritual,thesymbolicdebunkingofabusivepowerandtheliberationforthechildrentoexpressadifferentethicastohowitshouldbeexercised,onecorrelativewithAristotle’s‘mean’aswellaswithanethicofcareandresponsibility.ConclusionBettelheimsawnoroomformoralambiguityinfairytalecharacters.Forhim,therewasadistinctpolaritybetweengoodandbadcharactersforthisreflectedthepsychologicalneedofyoungchildreniftheyweretolearnthedifferencebetweengoodandevil.‘Ambiguities’,heargued,‘mustwaituntilarelativelyfirmpersonalityhasbeenestablished’(op.cit.,p.9).12AmaturestudentwhowatchedthevideoedextractwhereIrole-playedJackwasnotimpressed,andforreasonsverysimilartothoseexpressedbyBettelheim.Thesechildrenhadaclearsenseofrightandwrong,shesaid,whichIbegantoblurforthem.Mydutyasateacherwastoreinforcevirtuouspatternsofbehaviourforchildrenasyoungasthisandnottolicensemorallyunacceptableattitudes,eveninpretence.Thechildrenweretooyoungtolearnthatdistinctionsbetweenrightandwrongweresometimesdifficult.Whattheyneededwasabeliefthatthemoralrulestheyweretaughtcouldbetrustedandbelievedin.Inaway,IwasflatteredtohavemyteachingarousesuchpassionandIcansympathizewithhersentimentsalthoughdisagreeingwithherinterpretation.Hercommentsareinteresting,however,fortoexplainthisdisagreementistoengagewiththelimitsofmakingeducationaldramaanalogouswithcarnivalandthelimitsofcarnivalitself.OfcourseIbelievechildrenneedthesecurityofmoralrulesthatmakesensetothem.Iwasaheadteacherforthreeyears,howcouldIpossiblynotbelievethis?EvenifIhadwantedtounteachthemtherulesthenIhadsingularlyfailedtodoso,aswasevidencedbytheteacher-leddiscussionwherethechildrenwerestillabletousethelanguageofrulestovoicecondemnationofJack’sbehavioursoonaftertheoffensivescene.Yetthiswassurelythemostcarnivalesqueofallthesessions,itbeingtheonlyonewhichendedwithoutthemoralorderbeingrestored,asJackescapedwiththemoney.Thefinalsession,incomparison,despiteitscarnivalesquecharacteristics,endedwithapurgingofthegiant’ssociallyunacceptablebehaviourandareassertionofmoralnorms,typifyingwhatNorthropFryesawasacharacteristictendencyofconventionalcomedy.Somymaturestudentneednotworry;moralanarchywasnotmyaim,norwasitachievedwithinthisdrama.ThequotefromO’ToolewhichIusedtoopenthisaccountisrelevantinasmuchastheabsolutetruthswithwhichthechildrenbeganthedramawerebroughtintoconflictwithoneanother,justastheyareinreallife.Innegotiatingtheirwaythroughthisuncertainty,moralorderwasrestoredbutwasnot,asIhaveexplained,baseduponthesameprincipleswithwhichthechildrenbeganthedrama.Yethowcansuchanemphasisonmoralordersquarewithanequalemphasisoncarnival?Theparadoxhereisinherenttotheformofcarnivalitself.Byitsverynature,itmightdonomorethanreinforcethedominantsocialorderbytemporarilyallowingittobeturnedupsidedownanddistortedlyemulated.Thereisnoquestionthat,aftertakingon JACKANDTHEBEANSTALK:ETHICALEXPLORATION127therolesofJackandtheOgre,Ireassumedmyroleofteacher,calledtheclasstoorderanddiscussedwiththemwhathadhappenedinthedrama.Carnivalisclearlytemporalandtemporarybynature.Liketheutopianworldoffairytales,itexistsasanalternativeworldbutasonethatcanbeactualizedandlivedinwiththeknowledgethatitwillnotlast.Foreducationalpurposes,itspotentialliesbothwithinthetemporarylicenceitprovidestopursuealternativeexplorationsofpowerandresponsibilityandwithinthemodesitpresentstoenablethispursuittohappen.Certainly,withinaschoolsetting,dramaascarnivalisunlikelytobeasrevolutionaryasO’Toolesuggestsitcanbeinprinciple;andmyportrayalofJacklackedthesatiricalandpoliticalbiteofFo’sgiullare.Butthatneednotreduceittotheroleofpoliticallyexpedientsafetyvalve.AsMorsonandEmersonpointout:Thespecificformsthatcarnivaltakesvaryovertimeandfromculturetoculture,andsomeformsexploitthegenericpotentialofcarnivalmorethanothers’(1990,p.459).Carnivalisvariableandflexibleandateacher’scapacitytoexploreitsgenericpotentialwillbelimitedanddefinedbythemixandmatchofvalueswhichexistwithinthecultureoftheschool,embodiedwithinthelocalcommunityfromwhichthechildrenaredrawn,theinstitutionalizedrulesoftheschoolestablishmentand,crucially,withintheteacherherself.Thelessonsdescribedherewereinfusedwithmyownvalueagenda,asexpressedwithinthecharactersIchosetorepresent,theforminwhichIchosetorepresentthemandthemoralexplorationIwasdeliberatelytryingtoengender.ButIcouldnotforcethechildrentogoonthisjourney,onlycreatethemotivationandthestructurefordoingso.Hencethecharmandthepowerofcarnival,whosespiritiswaitingtobetappedinthenaturalplayfulnessofyoungchildren.Itisthere,too,intheamorphoussenseofcommunityaclassroomcangenerateamongthem,inthespiritofmanyoftheirtraditionaltalesandintheflexiblepedagogicformofprocessdrama.Togethertheycangenerateapotentforceformoraleducationaswellastheliberatingenergyoflaughter.Notes1Acasualprint-ourfromWarwickUniversitylibraryinMarch,1995,showedthatatleastfortynewEnglishlanguageversionsofthetalehavebeenpublishedsince1990.2Thereareearlierprintedreferencestothetale,however.ThomasNashe,writingin1596,dismisseditinanattackon‘idlepedantswhowillfindmatterinoughtodilateawholedayeofthefirstinventionofFy,fa,fum,IsmellthebloudofanEnglishman’.In1734,askitofthetalewaspublishedbyJ.RobertsinLondon,entitledEnchantmentdemonstratedintheStoryofJackSprigginsandtheEnchantedBean(seeOpie,1974,p.162).3Jack’sactive,adventuresomenatureandhismother’spassiveresponsetohiswaywardnessaretypicalofthekindofgenderstereotypingcommonthroughoutliteraryfairytales,thoroughlyanalysedbyMelleretal.(1984).AlthoughIamawareofthis,genderissuesarenotthefocusofthisparticularcasestudy.Theyare,however,discussedinWinston(1994).4SeeZipes(1987).Thefollowingargumentislargelytakenfromhisintroductorychapter.5MydaughterwasrecentlygivenavolumeentitledTraditionalFairyTalesasabirthdaypresent.Publishedin1990byTigerBooksInternational(London),itsillustrationsaretakendirectlyfromanEdwardianpublicationandthewrittentext,thoughanonymous,isobviouslyderivativeofTabart.Forexample,thisishowthefairyconcludeshertaletoJack: 128DRAMA,NARRATIVEANDMORALEDUCATION‘Youarerecklessbut,Itrust,braveandearnest.Goboldlyforward,fearingneitherdangernorhardship.Rememberthatmyprotectioncanbegiventoyouonlyaslongasyouworkboldlyandfaithfully’(p.76).Thereislessmoralizingbutitisjustasstrident.6IamdiscountingheresuchpostmodernworksasRaymondBriggs’JimandtheBeanstalk(1970)andScieszkaandSmith’sStinkyCheeseMan(1992),whicharenotsomuchversionsofthetaleasparodieswhichnecessitateapriorknowledgeofthetaleproper.7SeeOpies(1959),Chapter8andMeadows(1986,p.199).Thelatterexamineshowchildrenarein‘thedifficultpositionofhavingtworeferencegroupswithintheclassroom’theteacherandtheirpeers.8IhavebeenquestionedastomyuseofstereotypeherebutIamwillingtoargueforitsjustification.Onecriticsawmyuseofthebaseballcapasanegativeportrayalofblackyouthculture.Inthefirstplace,itwasnotatallnegativeasfarasthechildrenwereconcerned.‘Youlookcool!’wastheimmediateresponseofoneboy,whichleadstomysecondpoint.ItestablishedimmediatelyandeffectivelytheconnotationsIwanted,asevidencedinthisboy’sresponse.ItalsomatchedthearchetypalroleofJackastricksterandcarriedwithitwhatO’Neilldescribesas‘animmediateimplicationforaction…easilyandeagerlyanticipatedbytheaudience’(1995,p.38).O’Neillcommentsfurtheronthisfunctionalaspectofcharacter.‘Becausedramaticcharactersaredefinedpreciselybytheircontext,itisinevitablethattheywillpartake,tosomedegree,ofthenatureoftypesandmayremain“stereotypefiguresandtheatricalscarecrows,”asThomasManncalledthem’(ibid.,p.72).9ThefunctionofhelperisdefinedbyPropp(1968)asacharacteristicofthefolktale.10Itisalsopossibletointerpretthisdilemma,asacolleaguehas,ascentringuponaconflictbetweenJack’srighttohisfather’smoney(Kohlberg)versushisresponsibilitytoavoidcausingharmtoanotherperson(Gilligan).11SeeMisteroBuffoinFoandRame(1994).12TricksterslikeJackandPuss-in-Bootsserveapurposeentirelydistinctfrommorallearning,accordingtoBettelheim;theybuildcharacter‘…notbypromotingchoicesbetweengoodandbad,butbygivingthechildthehopethateventhemeekestcansucceedinlife….Moralitynottheissueinthesetalesbutratherassurancethatonecansucceed’(op.cit.,p.10). Chapter10TheStarMaiden:MoralandCulturalValuesMoralandCulturalValuesintheStoryofTheStarMaidenInrecentyears,story-tellersandeducationalistshaveperceivedinthecultureofNativeAmericansarespectandlovefortheland,demonstrativeofthemoralvirtuesofcareandstewardship,andaspiritualitywhichemphasizeshumanconnectednesstotheearth.HistoricalfiguressuchasChiefSeattlehavegainediconicstatus,becomingsymbolicofatypeofnaturalwisdom,expressedthroughcommunalvalues,whichwesternsocietywoulddowelltolearnfrom1;and,asaresultofthisperspective,NativeAmericanstorieshavebeenretoldandpresentedaspurveyorsofthiswisdom(CadutoandBruchac,1988a,1988b).However,theriseofpost-colonialconsciousness,particularlywithintheareasofculturalandliterarystudies,hasraisedquestionsregardingtheethicsofappropriatingstoriesfromcolonizedcultures.AsthenativeNorthAmericanLeeMaraclehaswritten:Thetruthisthatcreepingaroundlibrariesfullofnonsensicalanthropocentricdrivel,imbuingthesefindingswithfalsehoodinthenameofimagination,thenpeddlingthenonsenseas‘IndianMythology’isliterarydishonesty.(citedinGreenandLeBihan,1996,p.297)ThesuccessfulnovelistMargaretAtwoodbelievesthatthebestwritingaboutsuchagroupislikelytocomefromwithinthatgroup:…notbecausethoseoutsideitarelikelytovilifyit,butbecausetheyarelikelythesedays,andoutofwell-meaningliberalism,tosimplifyandsenti-mentalizeit,ortogetthetexturesandvocabularyandsymbolismwrong.(op.cit,p.297)Ratherthanbeingtreatedwithrespect,thestoriesmaybecomesubjectedtomisrepresentationandtrivialization,theirpartinacomplexsystemofthoughtandmythmisunderstoodandreducedtoplatitudes,theirvaluesandculturalsymbolsbecomingpollutedbythoseofthecolonizerandbythecommercialforcesofpost-industrialcapitalism.BarbaraJusterEsbensenisanaward-winningwriterofchildren’sstorieswholivesinWisconsin.ManyofherbooksareretellingsofNativeAmericanstoriesandtwoofthem, 130THESTARMAIDEN:MORALANDCULTURALVALUESLaddertotheMoonandTheStarMaiden,areversionsoftraditionalOjibwaytales.Theseretellingsare,inturn,baseduponliteraryversionspublishedoriginallyin1850,inavolumeentitledTheTraditionalHistoryandCharacteristicSketchesoftheOjibwayNation,(Copway,1978)andwrittenbyanOjibwaychiefwhohadtakentheEnglishnameGeorgeCopway.IamanadmirerofEsbensen’sworkbutaliteraryandhistoricalanalysisofherownandCopway’stextscanservetoillustratetheargumentativeforceofthesetwo,contradictoryperspectives;themoralpowerandbeautyofsuchtalesontheonehandandtheproblematicissuesofculturalmisappropriationontheother,thelatterbeingrenderedallthemoreproblematicwhentheretellingofthetalehasovertlyethicalintentions.Esbensen’sTale:TheStarMaidenFromtheoutset,EsbensensetsherversionofthetalewithinthenaturalenvironmentoftheOjibwaynationasitwas‘long,longago,whenallthetribesinthelandlivedinpeace’.Theillustrationsshowusalandofbeautyandofplenty,oflakes,streams,woodsandwildlife,aworld,asthetexttellsus,‘richwitheverythingthepeopleneeded’.TheOjibwayarereferredtoas‘thepeople’throughoutthetale,apeoplewholovetowatchtheskyatnightwhentheirworkisdone.Onenight,theynoticeastar,brighterthananyeverseenbefore;and,astheywatch,itfallstoearth,comingtorestoverahilltopinthedistance.Agroupofbravesissenttoinvestigatebuttheyreturnafraidbecausethestarhasrefusedtoanswertheirquestions.Thatnight,however,abeautifulstarmaidenappearsinadreamtoayoungbrave.Shetellshimhowtiredsheisofherwandering,howmuchsheloveshispeopleandtheirworld,andhowmuchshewouldliketolivewiththem.Inthemorning,thebravetellsthechiefofhisdreamand,atacouncilofthewisestmenandwomenofthetribe,thechiefannouncesthattheywillwelcometheStarMaidentolivewiththemintheformshechooses,whetherasaflower,afishorabird.Thatnight,theyoungbraveleavestofindtheStarMaidenand,whileshedriftsabovehim,lightinghiswaythroughthedarkness,heleadsherbacktothevillage.Themaidenslipsintoarose,butisunhappythereasitistoofarfromthevillageandshecanneverseethepeoplesheloves.Soshechoosesasmall,blue,prairieflowertobeherhome,butisdisturbedbythetramplinghoovesofthebuffalo.‘Icannotresthere!’shecriesoutindespairand,thatnight,thepeoplearesadtoseeherreturntothesky.But,hoveringoverthelake,sheseesherreflection,andthatofallhersky-sistersfloatingonthewater.Shecallstothemtostoptheirwandering,thatthequietwatersbelowcanbetheirhome.Thepeoplewatchasthelightsintheskyshake,thelakecomesalivewithstarsand,thenextmorning,hundredsofwaterliliescanbeseenfloatingonthelake.TheStarMaidenandhersistershavefoundtheirplaceonearth.Thetaleiswritteninasimpleandeconomicpoeticstyle,beautifullyillustratedbyHelenK.Davie.Throughtheartistryofitslanguage,imagery,structureandillustrations,itpromotesacoherentsetofspiritualandmoralvalueswhichcanbeilluminatedbycarefulanalysis.Theopeninglinesestablishthestyleandthetoneofthewholestory. DRAMA,NARRATIVEANDMORALEDUCATION131Oncetherewasatime,long,longago,whenallthetribesinthelandlivedinpeace.Therewerenowarsamongthem.Summerwasalwaysintheair.Thestreamswereclearandpure,andfilledwithfish.Esbensenhaschosentowritethetaleintheformoffreeverse,whichservestomeasurethepaceofthelanguageandaccentuateitsrhythms.Attimesrepetition,likethesteadybeatingofadrum,emphasizesthiseffect.‘Yourworldcallstome’,theStarMaidenannouncestothebrave.‘IlovetheblowingwindsIlovethecoloursIseebelowme.Iloveyourriversandlakes.’Thewordsaresimplethroughoutthenarrative,thesentencesshort,withfewornosubclauses.Similesandmetaphorsarestrikingintheirsimplicityanddrawuponthenaturalworld:thepeoplelovetowatchthestars‘flickertheiricyfire’,theStarMaiden’svoiceis‘likeathreadofsilver’.Whenthechiefspeaks,histonesmatchperfectlythoseofthenarrativeasawhole:‘Astarwantstoliveonearth,Ourpeoplewillwelcomeher.Theblueairovertheprairiewillfillwithbird-songTohonourhercoming.’Thissimplicityoflanguagemaywellservetheneedsofayoungreadershipbutitsculturalandartisticfunctionsgobeyondthat;for,alongsideitsrhythm,paceandimagery,itmatchestherepresentationsinwhite,Anglo-SaxoncultureofthespeechpatternsofwiseNativeAmericanchiefssuchascanbeseeninnumerousHollywoodwesternsorreadinthespeechesofChiefSeattlehimself.Inotherwords,EsbensenusesthelanguageofthetaletobuilduponculturallyreceivedimagesofanidealizednaturewhichconjureavisionofthesimplebutwiseIndian,the‘NobleSavage’.Thesevaluesarereinforcedandfleshedoutbythefull-pageillustrationsoneveryalternatepage.Eachillustrationisdividedintwo,consistingofalargedepictionofthenarrative,underneathwhichasmallerimageshowsaspeciesofwildlife—owl,deerorfox,forexample—sharingthenaturalenvironmentoftheOjibwaypeople.Theimagesaredistinctbutsimultaneousandsoemphasizetheindependentbutpeacefullyco-existentrelationshipbetweenthepeopleandtheothercreaturesofthenaturalworld.The 132THESTARMAIDEN:MORALANDCULTURALVALUEScolourfulborderswhichframeeachpagearebaseduponNativeAmericanpatterneddesignsandarethusacelebrationoftheartisticskillsofthepeople.Inaddition,thenarrativeillustrationsthroughoutsustainanimageofcommunallife,showingusmenandwomenbuildingabirchbarkcanoetogether;childrenplayinginthefieldsofcorn;familygroupings,gazinginwonderatthelightinthesky;andthechiefandhiscouncildancingtocelebratetheirdecisiontowelcometheStarMaidentoearth.Intheirwork,theirplay,theirpoliticsandreligion,thepicturesshowusapeoplewholivesimplybutinharmonywiththemselvesandwiththeirenvironment.Women,too,areseentoshareintheworkandthedecision-making;thepicturespresentimagesofanon-sexistsocietyandthisisreinforcedinthewrittentextbyEsbensen’suseofthegender-neutralpronountheytodescribethetribe’scollectiveactivities:Alldaylong,theyhuntedandfished.Theygatheredfruitsandnuts.Theymadebirchbarkcanoes…Foremostofallthestory’sethicalmessagesisthevalueofstewardship.Forachildlisteningtoorreadingthestory,thepersonificationofthewaterlilyequatesitsexistencewiththatofarecognizablyhuman,ifsupernatural,life.Inherthreemanifestationsasstar,womanandwaterlily,theStarMaidenisspecial,uniqueandbeautiful.ThefactthatshechoosesthemostvulnerableofallasherfinaldestinationisanactofloveandoffaithintheOjibwaypeople.Thelastpageofthebook,forthefirsttime,addressesthereaderdirectlyandtheimperative‘Touchthemgently’isrepeatedwithinthespaceoffivelinesoftext.Thereaderisbeingurgedtotreatwaterliliesand,byextension,allformsofnaturallifewhichwe,ashumansarecapableofdestroying,withcare,restraintandrespect.Thewaterlilymaynotbeofmaterialusetous,itmaynotfeedorclotheus,butitsbeautyismeaningful,signifyinganactiveandlovingrelationshipbetweenhumankindandthenaturalworld.ElizabethTooker,inherstudyofthespiritualityofthenativepeoplesofNorthAmericapointsoutthat,fortheOjibway,naturalphenomena,suchastheSun,areregardednotasobjectsbutaspersonsof‘other-than-human-type’.Shecommentsthat:(Ojibway)mythsarenotaboutfictitiousornecessarilyfabulouscharacters,butaboutpastlivesof‘persons’,includingimportantlypersonsoftheother-than-human-type.(1979,p.24)ThisgivesussomeperspectiveonthereligioussignificanceoftheoriginaltalefortheOjibway.Esbensen’srenderingofthetaleachievesapowerful,spiritualresonance;but,foralargelywhite,English-speakingreadership,itisfashionedthroughanalogywithtraditionalChristianmythology,inparticularthroughthecreationofimagesimplicitlyassociatedwiththeGardenofEdenandtheComingofChrist.TheworldpresentedatthebeginningofthestoryisimmediatelyrecognizableasaformofEden,anidealizedlandofplenty,ofpeaceandharmonywhichthenarrativeimpliesnolongerexists2.ThecomingoftheStarMaidenispreludedbytheappearanceofabrightlightinthenightsky,asisthecomingofChristtotheshepherds;herappearancetothebraveinhisdreamrecallsthe DRAMA,NARRATIVEANDMORALEDUCATION133visitationoftheangelstobothJosephandMaryatthetimeofMary’spregnancy;andthejourneyofthebrave,guidedbythelightoftheStarMaiden,hasechoesofthejourneyoftheMagi.Theseanalogiesareequallyinevidenceintheillustrations,wheretheStarMaiden,beautifulandbathedinlight,hoversoverthefigureofthebrave,oroverherreflectioninthelakebelow,withherarmsoutstretchedlikeanangel,withthesmileanddowncasteyesoftheMadonna.Andwhenshechoosesaforminwhichtoliveamongherchosenpeople,she,likeChrist,choosestobecomevulnerable.Waterlilies!TouchthemgentlyAndremember.TheselastwordsofEsbensen’stextaredensewithmeanings.SheissignallingthatheraiminretellingthestoryisthesameasGeorgeCopway’s,namely,tokeepanimportantculturalartefactfromdisappearing.However,herintentioninselectingthisparticularstoryfromCopway’sbookhasbeenshowntoemanatefromtheimportantethicalvaluesshebelievesitcanconveytoacontemporaryyoungreader.So,initsmostimmediatesense,heruseoftheimperative‘remember’isanurgeforherreaderstobearinmindhowimportantitistotreatthenaturalworldwithcare.Itisalsoageneralreminderofhowimportantstoriesareforthetransmissionofvalues.Finally,andveryimportantly,itconfirmsandemphasizesthesenseofwistfulnostalgiathathaspermeatedthetextsincetheopeningsentencesandwhichisemphasizedinthepalewatercoloursoftheillustrations.Itisnostalgiaforalostageofinnocence,foranobleracewhosesimplebutmorallyadmirablewayoflifehasvanished.TorecognizethisistoseeEsbensen’sstory,initsportrayalofNativeAmericansandtheirculture,asmorethanasimplestoryforchildrenorthemanifestationofarecenteducationaltrend;itplacesitinthetraditionofaromanticvisionoftheIndianthatextendsatleastasfarbackasRousseauandJamesFenimoreCooperandwhichhasideologicalaswellasliteraryimplications.TheDangersofNobleSavagismThephrase‘NobleSavage’wasfirstcoinedbyDrydenin1670inhisplayTheConquestofGranadabuttheconceptitengenderedwasmostclearlyexpressedbyRousseau.Thiscondition,istherealYouthoftheWorld,and…allulteriorimprovementshavebeensomanysteps,inAppearance,towardsthePerfectionofIndividuals,butinFacttowardstheDecrepitnessoftheSpecies.(Washburn,1964,p.418)Rousseau’sbeliefinaprimalageofinnocenceandhisnostalgiaforanimaginedtimewhenmanwasacreatureofsimpletastesandgoodinstincts,uncorruptedbythetyrannyofmoderncivilization,isnotablysimilartothevisionattheheartofEsbensen’stale.ButitisthroughtheworkofJamesFenimoreCooperthatthisvisionhadthemostseminalinfluenceonEuropeanAmericansensibilitiestowardstheAmericanIndian.Rousseau’semphasisonemotionandsentimentalityhadagreatimpactonRomanticism,amovementofthoughtandartwhichconfrontedthephilosophicalbeliefinrationalityandprogress 134THESTARMAIDEN:MORALANDCULTURALVALUESassociatedwiththeEnlightenment.TheRomanticsthrewasideabeliefinthefutureandembracedandglorifiedthepast.Forthem,asforRousseau,primalpeopleswereimaginedaslivinginperfectharmonywithnature,morallyandphysicallyravagedonlybycivilization.AscreationsoftheRomanticmovement,Cooper’s(1966)‘good’Indians,suchasUncasandChingachcookinTheLastoftheMohicans,areliteraryembodimentsofthisdepiction.However,CooperwasalsowritingatatimewhentheNativeAmericanswerebeingsystematicallydispossessedoftheirterritoriesand,despitethegenuineempathyandpityhefeltfortheplightoftheIndians,manycriticsseeaparticularideologicalsignificanceinhisdepictionoftheirheroicbutdoomedqualities.InthewordsofSeymourHouse:Sinceitisfareasiertolamentaracethantopreserveit,AmericansacceptedIndianextinctionasinevitableandindulgedthemselvesinsentimentalnostalgiaforalostcausethatwasassuredlylostbutthathadnevertrulybeenacause.(1965,p.61)SlotkinhasdescribedCooper’smournfultreatmentoftheIndians’dispossessionasatheart,asentimentalresponse,covertlyjustifyingthatverydispossession.Throughmyth,weimaginativelyhoardawaythecakewehaveeatenandvoiceouraffectionforaprecapitalistEdenevenwhilewereaffirmouraffiliationwiththevaluesandprioritiesofbourgeoissociety.(1992,p.7)Sentimentalromanticism,therefore,andthepresentationoftheIndianasatragicfigure,noblebutdoomed,bringswithitthedangersofafatalisticdiscourse,whichhasnoroomfortheexpressionofpoliticalalternatives.AsPearcehaswritten:They(theEuropeanAmericans)pitiedhisstatebutsawitasinevitable;theyhopedtobringhimtocivilizationbutsawthatcivilizationwouldkillhim’(citedinHouse,1965,p.61).ThustherepresentationoftheNativeAmericanasanidealtype,thenostalgicregretforhisvanishedwayoflife,canbeinterpretedaspartofaliterarytraditionwhichre-enforcesahistoricalperspectiveconfirmingthedispossessionanddemiseoftheIndianasinevitable.Inthissense,adulatingandcelebratingtheIndianisatypeofwhiteman’spenanceforacollectivesinthatwasreallynobody’sfault.Itsmessagebecomesoneofinactionandregretratherthanactionandhope.Itis,therefore,atleastarguablethatsignificantideologicalvalues,historicallyandculturallytransmitted,areattherootofthenostalgiaandsentimentthatpermeateEsbensen’stext;andthat,fromapost-colonialperspective,sheisguiltyofculturalmisappropriation.However,beforewerushtocondemneitherherorherstoryonideologicalgrounds,weshouldnotignorethesourceofhertale,itselfaliteraryartefact; DRAMA,NARRATIVEANDMORALEDUCATION135norshouldweneglectthelifeofitswriterKah-Ge-Ga-Gah-Bowh,aliasGeorgeCopway,ChiefofhisNationandmissionaryoftheMethodistChurch.Copway’sTale:TheStarandtheLilyTheOjibway,orChippewanationtraditionallypopulatedthelandoflakesandforestswhichborderontheprairiestothenorth,westandsouthofLakeSuperior.Today,manyliveinCanadianOntarioorinreservations,suchasRedLakeandLeechLake,innorthMinnesota.In1850,whenGeorgeCopwaywrotehisversionofthetale,membersoftheOjibwayNationlivingintheUnitedStateshad,forfourteenyears,beenboundbyatreatytoremovetolandsouthoftheMissouriRiver,atreatywhichtheymanagedtohavemodifiedbypetitioningtheWashingtonGovernmentin1855.Thewordswithwhichtheyopenedthepetitionweresignificant.Welovethespotwhereourfathers’bonesarelaidandwedesirethatourbonesmayrestbesidetheirsalso.NowFather,whenourchiefssoldtheirlandtoyou,youradviceandcounseltouswasthatweshouldabandonourIndianhabitsandcustoms.Wehaverenouncedthemandaretryingtofollowyouradviceandexamples.(Washburn,1973,p.2510)Theirpetitionwassuccessful,inasmuchasthethreatofremovalwaslifted;inagreement,however,theirtribalorganizationsweredissolved.Theycouldnowcontinuetoinhabitthelandoftheirfathers,butasindividuals,notasatribe.SuchwerethetimesCopwaylivedin.HehimselfwasanativeofOntarioandwasthusfreefromtheextentoftheoppressionenduredbythosemembersofhispeoplewholivedintheUnitedStates,coercedintoconsciouslyabandoningtheirculturalpracticesandintorenouncingtheircapacitytoorganizepolitically.However,thelifehechoseappearstohavebeeninaccordancewiththeadviceofferedtothechiefswhosoldtheirlandtotheGreatWhiteFather.Copway’sbookwas,infact,thefirstvolumeofNativeAmericanhistorywrittenbyanIndian,(Indianbeingthetermheuseshimself)andfromitwecanpickupdetailsofhisautobiography(Copway,1978,p.xi).Hisearlyyearswerespentfollowingthetraditionalwayoflifeofhispeoplebutthiswasbrokenbytwentymonths’schooling,conversiontoChristianityandsixyears’residencyinBoston,Massachussets(op.cit.,p.viii).HeappearstohavedividedtheremainderofhislifebetweenmissionarypreachingamongtheOjibwayintheWestandtopleadingtheircausetowhiteChristiansandphilanthropistsintheEast.3InaseriesofletterswrittentothePhiladelphiaSaturdayEveningPost,heisrevealedasavisionarywhoforesawa‘catastrophicexterminatingwar’ontheplainsoftheWest;andasachampionofhispeople’srights,albeitonewhourgedthattheirsalvationlaythroughthecivilizingprocessesofChristianityandaneducationinEnglishlanguageandliterature(op.cit.,pp.ix,245).Inthelightofthis,astudyofCopway’sversionofthestory,whichheentitledTheStarandtheLily,isrevealing.Theaccusationsofnostalgia,ofidealization,ofsentimentalitythatonemightlevelatFenimoreCooper,oratEsbensen,areaccentuatedinhisownnarrative.Thewholeofhisbook,infact,issuffusedwithnostalgia,presentingavisionof 136THESTARMAIDEN:MORALANDCULTURALVALUEShispeoplenottoodissimilarfromthatoftheNobleSavage.ThetaleisnarratedinthevoiceofanoldIndianchiefandisframedbyCopway’sownexperienceofhearingittoldasachild.Thechiefhimselfispresentedinimagesevocativeofpeace,wisdomandsimpletranquility.Beforerelatingthetaletoagroupofchildren,heis‘satinhiswigwam,quietlysmokinghisfavouritepipe’(p.97).Attheend,‘whiletearsfellfastfromtheeyesofall,theoldmanlaiddownandwassoonsilentinsleep’(ibid.,p.102).Copwaythentakesupthefirstperson:Sincethat,Ihaveoftenpluckedthewhitelily,andgarlandeditaroundmyhead—havedippeditinitswaterybed—butneverhaveIseenitwithoutrememberingthelegendofthedescendingstar.(ibid.,p.102)HisproseringswithculturalechoesdifferentfromEsbensen’s,havingmoreincommonwithDickensthanChiefSeattle.Itiswrittenwiththefluency,therhythmsandthemannersofthenineteenthcenturyeducatedmiddleclasses,ofthosewhiteEuropeanswhowroteinsentimentaltermsabouttheIndiansratherthaninthelanguagewhichEsbensenrepresentsasthatoftheIndiansthemselves.AsamanwhodevotedmuchofhisadultlifetothepropagationofChristianityamonghispeople,itisunsurprisingthatthebiggestinfluenceonthetoneandimageryofhisproseisrecognizablythatoftheBible.InhisversionofthetaletheallusionstotheGardenofEdenareexplicit:Thebeastsofthefieldweretame,theycameandwentatthebiddingofman.Itwas…atimewhenearthwasaparadiseandmanworthilyitspossessor.(ibid.,p.98)ThisisnottheunhierarchicalparadiseofEsbensen’stale.Here,asinGenesis,beastisservanttoman;and,asinnineteenthcenturycapitalistAmerica,manownstheland.TheIndians,hetellsus,lovedtowatchthestars:fortheybelievedthemtobetheresidencesofthegoodwhohadbeentakenhomebytheGreatSpirit.(ibid.,p.98)Expressedintheseterms,thereisevidentlyverylittledifferencebetweentheOjibwaybeliefinanafterlifeandtheChristianconceptofheaven.Inthewordschosenbythechieftoclosehistale,CopwaymakesadirectreferencetoheaveninaphrasewhichcallstomindthecadencesoftheLord’sPrayer(‘ThywillbedoneonearthasitisinHeaven’).‘Children!whenyouseethelilyonthewaters,takeitinyourhands,andholdittotheskies,thatitmaybehappyonearthasitstwosisters,themorningandeveningstars,arehappyinheaven’.(ibid.,p.102)TheimageryassociatingtheStarwiththecomingofChrist,andtheangelicappearanceoftheStarMaiden,arealsopresent;likeChrist,theStarMaidenwillsufferlittlechildrentocomeuntoher: DRAMA,NARRATIVEANDMORALEDUCATION137‘Children!yes,theyshallbemyplaymates,andIshallkisstheirbrowswhentheyslumberbythesidesofcoollakes’.(ibid.,p.101)andshehovers‘withexpandedwing’asshefollowsthebravestothevillage.Copway’sstatedaimmayhavebeentopreservethestoriesofhispeoplebut,here,hechosetodosointheChristianvernacular.ThismayhavebeenasubconsciousresultofhisownacculturationbutismorelikelytohavebeenaconsciousattempttoaccommodateChristianvaluesintothetraditionalstoriesofhispeople.Ineithercase,Esbensen’sadaptationcanbeseentohaveharnessedChristianreligiousimageryalreadyexistentinCopway’stext.TheextentofCopway’sChristianisationofthetalecantosomeextentbemeasuredbycomparingittoanotherversion,thatpublishedinacollectionbyLouiseJeanWalkerin1961.WalkerclaimsinherintroductionthathertalesarefaithfulversionsofthosetoldtoherinpersonbyChippewasthemselves.Here,theStarMaidenisaspirit,oneofthegoodfairieswhomtheChippewapeoplerespectandneverdisturb.SheisnotthevulnerablefigureportrayedbyCopwayandEsbensenandthereisastronghintofsexualityinherdecisiontoliveinthelake.…shesawawhiteflowerwithaheartofgoldshiningonthewatersbelow.Asshelooked,acanoe,steeredbytheyoungwarriorwhohadtoldherwishestohispeople,shotpastandthestrong,brownhandbrushedtheedgeoftheflower.(p.18)ShedoesnotseekorneedtheprotectionofthepeopleandthismixofdesireandrespectisaspiritualreflectionoftheChippewa’srelationshipwithNature,arelationshipofmutualrespectandsensualpleasure.Devoidofthesentiment,nostalgia,andChristianimagery,Walker’stalehasaverydifferentmeaning.ConclusionCopway’sparadoxisamovingone.Thenostalgicregretforthedisappearanceofhispeople’swayoflifeisexpressedinRomanticandChristiansentimentsacquiredfromtheverycultureresponsibleforthisdisappearance;and,asaMethodistmissionary,hewashimself,inpart,anagentofthisculture.YethisintentionsasawriterweredifferentfromthoseofRomanticssuchasFenimoreCooper.Forrightorforwrong,hesawwesterncivilizationasaforcewhichcouldbringeitherdignityorcorruptiontohispeople,dependentuponwhichwesternvaluestheywereexposedto.ThoseoftheChristianandthePhilan-thropist(towhomhededicatedhispreface)wouldenabletheIndian‘toriseabovethesoilofdegradationandhoveraboutthehighmountsofwisdomandtruth’(1978,p.ix);whereasthoseofthefrontiersmenwouldbringaboutthedownfalloftheIndianforthewhiteman’spersonalprofitandgain(op.cit.,p.241).Civilizationashedefineditwouldn’tkillhispeoplebut,atthetimeinwhichhelived,couldpossiblysavethem.Assuch,hedidnotdespairforthefutureofhispeoplebutsawitintermsofa 138THESTARMAIDEN:MORALANDCULTURALVALUESstruggle,acausenotyetlost,andhecampaignedhardfortheirpoliticalandeducationalwelfare.Thepublicationofhisbookin1850hadapoliticalpurpose,statedinthepreface:…thatImayawakenintheheartadeeperfeelingfortheraceofred-menandinducethepale-facetousegreaterefforttoeffectanimprovementintheirsocialandpoliticalrelations.(ibid.,p.vii)Despiteitssentimentandnostalgia,itwasaworkintendedtoprovokepoliticalaction,notexcusepoliticalinaction.Andtheextentofhisownacculturationintothecontemporary,western,literarycanonmeantthatheunderstoodhowtoappealinhiswritingtoawhite,urban,educatedaudience.4JamesAxtell(1981)haspointedoutthat,whentheIndianandChristianculturesmet,thedirectionofreligiouschangewasunilinear,duetoChristian-ity’saggressiveandexclusiveevangelism.However,hegoesontoarguethattobeonthedefensivedidnotimplyatotallackofinitiative.TheIndianswereincrediblytenaciousoftheircultureandlife-style,buttheirtraditionalismwasneitherblindnorpassive…nativepeoples…wereremarkablyresourcefulinadjustingtonewconditions,especiallyinusingelementsofEuropeanreligiousculturefortheirownpurposes.(ibid.,p.86)WhenpreachingtotheOjibway,Copwayhadmostprobablylearnedtoadaptthetraditionaltalesofhistribeformissionarypurposes,usingthemtopromoteChristianvalues.Nonetheless,hispurposeinpublishingwastofindawhitereadershipforthetales,topromoteanappreciationfortheculturalrichnessofhispeopleamongthoseEuro-Americanswhocouldinfluencepoliticalaction.Forthisreason,theintegrationofEuropeanculturalreferenceswithintheOjibwaynarrativecanbeinterpretednotonlyasaconsciousattempttopreservethatnarrativewithinanaggressive,dominantculturebutalsoasaplayuponnineteenthcentury,bourgeoissensibilitiesfortheintendedpoliticalbenefitofhispeople.ThesymbolicimageryandnostalgicaurawhichhecontributedtoTheStarandtheLilyneednot,therefore,beviewedinanegativelight.AsFredInglishaswritten,‘Nostalgiaisnotaswearword.Itmaybeasmuchapowerfulforceforgoodandpositiveactionasitmaybeapassiveoranaestheticpervasionofthespirit’(1993,p.46).ItisattributabletoCopway’sartistryandinter-culturalreferencingthathisbooksurvivedandthatEsbensen,overonehundredyearslater,cametoseeinhisversionofTheStarandtheLilyapowerfulvehicleformoralvalues,relevanttothedominantcultureinamuchlaterage.And,awarethoughwemightbeoftheideologicalcomplexityandproblematicintertextualityofhertale,Iwouldarguethatthemoralconcernsatitsheartaremoreaforceforgoodthanforanythingelseandthatweshouldpermitchildrenthepossibilitytobemovedbyitssimplepoetryandtheplayofitsimages. DRAMA,NARRATIVEANDMORALEDUCATION139MoralandCulturalValuesintheDramaofTheStarMaidenTheworkdescribedandanalysedbelowwastaughtoverfivesessions,ofapproximatelyonehoureachinlength.ThechildrenwereaYear5classinaRomanCatholicPrimarySchoolsituatedontheoutskirtsofacitycentre.Myanalysisofthestoryhasindicatedthat,unlikethepreviouscasestudies,IhadidentifieditsethicalvaluesasasourceIwishedtotapintoratherthantoproblematizebutthattherewerenonethelessproblemsconcerningtheculturalrepresentationofNativeAmericanpeopleandtheappropriationoftheirmythology.Mybroadintentionsinthedramawere,therefore,twofold.Firstly,toexplorethemoralagendaofthetale—issuesofstewardship,ofcarefortheenvironment—throughenhancingthepoeticsymbolism,notdisturbingit,andbyharnessingthepowerfulemotionalpullofthetale.Secondly,tode-mythologizetherepresentationoftheNobleSavagebypresentinghistoricizedmodelsofdispossessedNativeAmericans,framedwithinacontemporarycontext.Thedramawasintendedtoexploreanethicaltensionbetweeneconomicpressuresandculturalidentityandhenceintroducefurthermoraldimensions.Iwasawarethatthiswasanambitiousprojectand,intheevent,thedramawhichensuedworkedmosteffectivelythroughthemoralresonancesofitssymbolismwhilethrowingupfurtherambivalencesconcerningcultural,moralandspiritualvaluesandtheirmanifestationindrama.Yetthisuncertainoutcomeiswhatmakesitworthyofanalysis.ANarrativeoftheSessionsInthefirstsession,Ireadthechildrenthestory,firstofallgivingabriefintroductiontoitssource,itsageandtotheimportanceofstoriesfortheNativeAmericanpeoples.WethenstudiedtheillustrationsandIfollowedthiswithanorigamiexercise,makingawaterlilyoutoftwosquaresofcolouredpaperandpromisingtocomeintotheschooltoworkinsmallgroupswithallthosechildrenwhowouldliketomaketheirown.WethenbegantoworktogetheronadancewhichtoldthestoryofTheStarMaidenthroughmovement.Itaughttheopeningsequenceandchoreographedtherest,whichwasdevisedfromthechildren’sownmovements.Thedancewascompletedandperformedtomusicinthesecondsession.Followingthis,wecreatedacompositecalligram,intheshapeofastar,usingphrasesfromthefinaltwopagesofthebook,andexperimentedwithdifferentwaysofreadingit(seeAppendix2).Thedramapropertookplaceduringthethirdandfourthsessions,spreadovertwodays,inthefollowingweek.Firstofall,thechildrentookitinturnstolaytheliliestheyhadmadeoversomebluepaperwhichIhadplacedinacornerofthehall.Theythensatinasemi-circlebeforeitandrecognizedthattheyhadcreatedarepresentationofthelakewheretheStarMaidenlivedwithhersisters.WerecappedthesignificanceofthestoryandIthenshowedanillustrationofamodernday,teenageNativeAmerican,whichdepictedclearlythepovertyoflifeonareservation.5IbrieflyrelatedhowthewhitesettlershaddispossessedtheIndiansoftheirland.Ithentoldthechildrenthatwewouldbegintomakeourownstory,setinthemodernworld,aboutthepeopletowhomthestoryofTheStarMaidenbelonged.Wewouldmakethisintheformofadramawhich 140THESTARMAIDEN:MORALANDCULTURALVALUESbeganwithadream.Isimultaneouslynarratedandenactedthedream,explainingthatitwastherecurringdreamoftheyoungChiefofhistribe.Init,hewouldseehimselfsigningacontractinexchangeformoney,andthen,dressedinasmart,newsuit,floatinginacanoeonthelakebesidewhichhehadlivedasachild.Hewouldstooptopickawaterlily,whichhewouldthencrushinhishandsanddropintothelake,awakeningsuddenlyandinasweat.Afterdiscussingandanalysingthedreamimageingreatdetail,thechildrenworkedingroupstocreateadramaticimagewhichmightexplainthisdreamintermsofrecenteventsintheChief’slife.AllimagesdepictedtheChiefsellingthelandandthelakewithouttheconsentofhispeople.Atthestartofthenextsession,wesataroundthelakeandre-openedthediscussionofpossiblereasonsastowhytheChiefmighthavedecidedtosellthelandandwhyhenowfeltsoguiltyaboutit.IthentookontheroleoftheChief’sgrandfatherandtoldthechildrenhowIhadtravelledtothecitytospeakwithmygrandson,whoworkedthereasasuccessfulbusinessman;andIexplainedhowthepeopleintheofficestherehadignoredandbeenrudetome;andhowIpitiedthem,fortheywerenotatpeace.Aftercreatingtheatmosphereofthoseofficesasitmusthavefeltfortheoldman,thechildrenthenplayedout,incollectiveroles,themeetingofthesonandhisgrandfather,attheendofwhichthesonagreedtomeetwithhispeopleandexplainhisdecision.Forthismeeting,ItookontheroleoftheChiefandinsistedthatthemoneyfromthesalewouldbeusedtobuildhousesandprovidejobsandamenitiesthatmypeoplecouldenjoyandbenefitfrom.AttheendofthemeetingIcameoutofrole,stoodatsomedistancefromthelakeandaskedthechildrentopositionthemselveseitheraroundthelake,closetome,orin-between,dependinguponwheretheirsympathiesasmembersofthetribenowlay.Allgroupedcloselyaroundthelake.WediscussedhowtheChiefmusthavefelttoexperiencesuchrejection;then,asthedramahadbegunwithadream,Iaskedthemtoenditwithadream.Insmallgroups,theywereaskedtothinkhowthestorymightendandtocreateadramaticimage,thistimefromthedreamofamemberofthetribe,whichwouldhintatwhatthisendingwas.Afterviewinganddiscussingthese,Iaskedthechildrenwhattheythoughtwecouldlearnfromthestorywehadcreated.Thefollowingweek,inafinal,classroomsession,thechildrencreatedtheirownstarpoems.GiventhephraseTouchThemGently,theywereaskedtocomposethepoembynaminganddescribingthingsintheworldoftoday,orinthetraditionalworldoftheNativeAmericans,whichtheythoughtneededtobetreatedwithcare(seeAppendix3).Theselessonswerenotidealmodelsofsustainedgoodpractice.Thereweretwoboysintheclasswithbehaviouralproblemswhowereneverdisruptive,butonlyintermittentlyinvolvedinthedramaoritsaccompanyingclasswork;overall,thechildren’slackofexperiencewiththemediumaffectedtheirabilitytocreateeffectivedramaticimages.Imadeaverybasicerrorofjudgmentbythinkingthechildrenwouldbeabletomanagethescenewhere,inroleastheChief,Ivisitedtheofficeenvironmentstheyhadcreated.However,Ifeltatitsconclusionthat,onthewhole,thechildrenhadworkedwithcommitmentandseriousmoralengagement,creatingastrongsenseofgroupidentity,aviewsupportedbythespokenandwrittencommentsoftheteacher.Inaddressingwhere,whyandhowitworkedasmoraleducation,Iwillnotbeneglectingtheambivalenceswhichmakeit,intheend,adifficultdramatoevaluate.Theframeworkestablishedin DRAMA,NARRATIVEANDMORALEDUCATION141CaseStudy2isstillpertinenttoitsanalysisandIwillmakedirectuseofitbutwillbeginbyproposingandanalysingafurthercategory:thatofritual.RitualEnrolmentandMoralInvolvementEventosayitinoneword,ritual,isaskingfortrouble.(Schechner,1993,p.228)Thedynamicofthedramawasdependentuponthechildrenbeingabletofeel,understandandarticulatethemoralissuescontainedwithinthesymbolismsofthetaleandwhyitmightbeofsignificancetoaparticularculture.Consequently,themainintentionofthefirsttwosessionswastohelptheminternalizeandcareforthestoryandforthisIdeployedstrategieswhichwereritualisticinform.AstheabovequotefromSchechnersuggests,however,theconceptofritualisaslipperyoneandrecentlytheoristswithinthefieldofprocessdramahaveattemptedtodefineitscharacteristicsingreaterdepth.O’Neillusefullydrawsourattentiontothenatureandfunctionofritualsinsociallifeandtohowmanyplays,particularlybyShakespeare,containexamplesofthem,rangingfromprocessions,feastsandcoronationstoweddings,trialsandfunerals.Suchritualsshedefinesas:‘awayofunderstandingandcelebratingourownlivesinthecontextofourcommunities’andemphasizestheirpurposeinthetheatreasbearersof‘harmonyandfulfilment’(1995,p.147).Inprocessdrama,however,thetermritualisusednotonlywithreferencetotheimitationofsuchrealliferitualsbuttodefinespecificconventionsintendedtoservesimilarcommunalpurposeswithinthecontextualized,structuralneedsofaparticulardramaticevent.Thesecommonlyincludetheuseofaconchtoritualizeturn-takingandthedeploymentoftheatreformssuchastrialsandpublicmeetings.O’Neillseesasignificantfunctionofbothkindsofritualasthe‘distancingandcontaining(of)emotion’(ibid.,p.149).ForO’Toole,ritualinprocessdramaischaracterizedby‘theformalisedandceremonialsharingofamomentperceivedtobesignificantbyallthoseconcerned’(1992,p.29).Heseesitsuseatthebeginningofadramaas:‘…partoftheenrolment,asawayofcommittingtheparticipantstoeachotherandtothedrama’(ibid.,p.160).Oneofthewaysitmanagesthisistoinvolvetheparticipantsinataskinwhichthereisatensionimplicittoitsveryundertaking.NeelandsandGoodestressthedifferencesindramabetweenritualandmereentertainment.Forthemrituals‘establishacommunityofideas,beliefsandvalues’(1995,p.17)andritualexperience‘actualizes…throughsymbolsthespiritualandmaterialaspirationsofacommunity’(ibid.,p.18).InthedramaofTheStarMaidentherewerethreeenrollingeventswhichIwouldclassifyasritualtheatre:thecreationandperformanceoftheDance;thecreationandreadingofthecommunalStarPoem;andthecreationofthewaterliliesandthelake,thevisual‘set’forthedrama.Allwerecommunal,formalizedexperiencesmeanttoenrolthechildrenintothespiritofthedramabygeneratingcommitmentandbycreatingasharedfeelingofsignificance,harmonyandfulfilment.Thesuccessoftheseritualswasmostpowerfullyevidencedbythechildren’sinvolvementinandresponsestothedance. 142THESTARMAIDEN:MORALANDCULTURALVALUESThemovementsofthedancedepictedthestoryandusedthebook’sillustrationsasstimuli.Theopeningphrases,whichItaught,consistedofstylizedmovementssuggestinghowtheOjibwaypeopleusedtolive:hunting,fishingfromthelake,gatheringfruit.Thechildren’sownmotifswerestructuredaroundthejourneyoftheyoungbravetomeettheStarMaiden,thedescentofthestarsfromheavenandtheirtransformationintowaterlilies.Themusic—RedWind,byGabrielleRothandtheMirrors—wascharacterizedbysoftbutheavyrhythms,resonantofNativeAmericandrumming.6Thetensionsimplicittothecreationandperformanceofthisdanceinvolvedthechildreninmeasuredmovementthroughspace;inworkinginunison,asindividualsyetasone;ingroupswhichchangedformationandwheretouch,supportandteamworkwerenecessary;andinshared,repetitivespatialandtemporalpatterning.Itwaslearningachievedanddemonstratedthroughthebody.Thebody…istheplacewherehumanityachievestheritualizationofmotioninanartformcalled‘dance’…themostimportantandpervasivemeansbywhichprimalpeoplescelebrateliving.(Highwater,1982,p.133)JamakeHighwaterisacontemporaryNativeAmericanwriterwhohasexplainedthespiritual,ritualisticforceofdanceintheexperienceofprimalpeopleandarguesthatonlyrecentlyhaswesternculturebeguntorediscoveranunderstandingofthesignificanceofdancetothecommunalemotionalandspirituallife.Recentwritingbywesterntheoristsandeducationalistsondancewouldsupporthisargument.(Forexample,Hanna,1979,Spencer,1985).Boasisonetheoristwhostressesthetransformativenatureofdance,definingitintermsofanaestheticavailabletoall:ordinarygesturesandactionscanbecomedanceifatransformationtakesplacewithintheperson;atransformationwhichtakeshim(sic)outoftheordinaryworldandplaceshiminaworldofheightenedsensitivity.(citedinSpencer,1985,p.2)Understoodintheseterms,dancehasthepotentialtobecomeapowerful,sensitizing,communalexperienceand,aftercreating,rehearsingandperformingtheStarMaidendance,thechildrenwerequestionedastoitsemotionalimpactuponthem.Theirresponseswereimmediate:Girl:Itmakesmefeelpeacefulinside,niceandcalm.Girl:Happy.Girl:Special.Boy:Itlookedlikethestarsinthenight,inanicenight,likeseeingitwithanicesunset.Boy:IfeellikeI’minthetribe,likeI’minthestory,costhemusicfitsinwithmyideaofthepeople.Girl:Ifeelcomfy.Girl:Itremindsmeoflilies,floatingaboutonthewater.Performingthedance,therefore,enhancedtheemotionalimpactofthestorybydistancingandcontainingthisimpactwithinastrong,artisticform.7Itconjuredup DRAMA,NARRATIVEANDMORALEDUCATION143positivefeelingsofwell-beingassociatedwithawebofimaginedimageswhichhadthestoryattheircentre,helpingthechildrentocare,notnecessarily,inanydeepersense,foreachotherbutforthestory,thefocusofthedanceitself.Anemotionalbond,encouragedbyritual,nowlinkedthemmorefirmlytothefictionandtothesymbolicfigureoftheStarMaiden.Consequently,withinthedramathatfollowed,childrenweremorereadilyabletoparticipateinserious,symbolicplay,wherecareforthestoryasaculturalbeliefcametobeattheheartofthemoralconfrontationbetweentheChiefandhispeople.However,itisinterestingtoreflectonceagainonWilliams’contentionthat‘drama…isneitherritualwhichdisclosestheGodnormythwhichrequiresandsustainsrepetition’(Chapter3,p.30).TheStarMaidendanceexhibitedboththesefeaturesofritualandemphasizesthatthedramawastohaveadifferentfunction,oneintendedtodialogizetheexperienceofthedance.Intheevent,assubsequentanalysiswillsuggest,thesuccessofthedanceasritualprovidedanemotionalimbalancewhichworkedtothedetrimentoftheintendeddialogismofthedrama.Toappreciatewhythisshouldhavehappened,itishelpfultorememberthatIwasnotworkinginavalue-free,culturalvacuum.ThiswasaCatholicschoolandaclassinwhichallbaroneofthechildrenwereCatholicandwhere,accordingtotheteacher,70percentofthemwereregularchurch-goers.Inotherwords,thesewerechildrenwhoseliveswereattunedtoritual;whoseschoolcommunitywasdefinedlargelybytheimportanceitattachedtotheritualoftheCatholicmass;andwhoconsequentlyunderstoodritualasaseriousandsignificantevent.Thechildren’sfirmgroundinginChristianmythologyneedstobeborneinmindasanimportantcontributoryfactortothisparticulardramawiththeseparticularchildren.Ratherthantheritualcreatingtheirabilitytoworkwiththestory,itismoreprecisetoseeitasworkingincongruencewithanalreadyexistentsensitivitytothestory’ssymbolismanditspotentialsignificancetoapeople.AlthoughChristianterminologywasneverusedorreferredtothroughoutthedrama,Iwillarguethatitsresonance,skilfullyinterwovenbyCopwayintothetextofTheStarandtheLilyandinheritedbyEsbensen,greatlyfacilitatedthechildren’scapacitytoworkfictionallyandwithintegrityinaculturalcontextdifferentfromtheirown.Attheheartofthiswastheirabilitytoworkwiththesymbolismofthestoryandthedrama.RespondingtotheDramaticImageasaSourceofMoralReflectionItistheplay’scentralimagethatremains,itssilhouette,andiftheelementsarehighlyblendedthissilhouettewillbeitsmeaning,thisshapewillbetheessenceofwhatithastosay.(Brook,1968,p.152)EzraPoundhasdefinedthepoeticimageas‘thatwhichpresentsanintellectualandemotionalcomplexinaninstantoftime’.Hewrites:‘Theimageismorethananidea.Itisavortexorclusteroffusedideasandisendowedwithenergy’(citedinRogers,1978,p.7).Thesecharacteristics—complexity,fusionofintellectandemotion,energy—giveussomeclueastothepowerofimagerytogeneratemoralreflectionandtocapturemoralconflictasitismosttrulyexperienced;asacomplexnexusofcontradictoryreasons 144THESTARMAIDEN:MORALANDCULTURALVALUESpassionatelyarguedandemotionspassionatelyfelt.Thesensorialqualitiesofsymbolicimagerycarrywiththemthenecessarychargetoconveythis;and,inthewordsofIrisMurdoch:‘Metaphorsoftencarryamoralchargewhichanalysisinsimplerandplainertermsisdesignedtoremove’(1970,p.77).ThemeaningofthisdramahingeduponthedramaticimagewhichgaveformtotheChief’srecurringdream,usedatthebeginningofthethirdsession.TheimageportraystheChief,dressedinasmartsuit,signingacontractforthesaleoflandandwaterandbeinghandedmoneyindollarbills;then,asdreamsdo,thelocationshiftstothelakewherehegrewup,thecontractnowbeingusedasanoartosteerhimacrossthelakeinabirchbarkcanoe.Ashestoopstopickthelily,thewordsofaproverbtaughthimbyhisgrandfatherresoundthroughhishead:OurpeoplewillliveuntilthewatersturnsourUntilthelandisscorchedbytheSunAndtheStarMaidenlosessightofhersistersabove.Asthewordsfade,hecrushesthelilyanddropsitintothelake,awakeninginasweatandcoveringhisfacewithhishands.Dreamsareacommonconventioninnon-naturalisticdramaandO’Neillhasshownhowtheycanbeusedbypractitionersofprocessdrama.Words,actionsandsoundsinadreamcanbepatternedanddistortedinagrotesquebuthighlysignificantmanner.Thedreamalsoprovidesastrongtemporalorientation—arelivingofahappyorpainfulpastincidentorapremonitionoffuturehappenings.(1995,p.146)Thedreamsuggestsatensionbetweenthetribe’spastandtheChief’sdesiretomakeadifferentfuture.8Italsoservedtheaestheticfunctionofplacingsymbol,andtheinterpretationofsymbol,attheheartofthedrama,thuscreatingacongruencewiththepoeticformoftheoriginalstoryandallowingforadialogicalinterplaybetweentheirsymbolisms.Theambivalenceintegraltothesesymbolsprovidedaholdingformwithsufficientspacetoaccommodateapolyphonyofrelatedmeaningswhichthechildrencouldsupply;andthefactthatthesemeaningshadmoralconnotationsallowedthesymboltocarryamoralcharge,asdefinedbyIrisMurdoch.Semioticallytheimagesignalledjustsuchamoralconflictthroughsomaticresponsesindicativeoffeelingsassociatedwiththediscomfortofanguish,guiltandremorse.Finally,itsunfinished,unexplainedambivalencehadtheappealofamystery,providingtheimpetustoengagethechildren’simaginativeenergiesinthetaskofinterpretingitsmeaning.Ambivalence,describedbyUshenkoas‘acoprescenceofcontextuallycontrollableandintegralalternatives’isseenbythesametheoristasthemotoroftheimagination,whichhedefinesas‘thepowertoenvisage,orvisualize,ambivalenceandambiguity’(citedinNowottny,1962,p.147).Givensuchastimulus,thechildren’sanalysisofthedreamimageprovedtobestriking,notonlyasademonstrationoftheirabilitytomakemoralsenseofitbutalsoforthecomplexityofmoralmeaningstheycouldjustifiablyinterpretfromit.Forthisreason,Ipresenttheir DRAMA,NARRATIVEANDMORALEDUCATION145responsesindetailbelow,slightlyeditingmycontributionsasteacher,followedbyaninterpretivecommentary.G1:Well,it’sthecontract,like,askingthemforwaterlilies.B1:Someone’saskingforhislandandhegivesittothem.T:Doeshegiveittothem?G2:No,hegivesinandsellsit.G3:Hethinkshe’sbeenatraitortohispeopleforsellingtheland.B2:Ithinkhe’sreallyselfish.Theclothesarejustforhimself.Andhesellsthelandwithouttellinganybodyelse.Hejustsellsit.T:Hesoldthelandwherehispeoplelived?Withouttellingthem?B2:Theywon’thaveanywheretolivebecausehesoldtheland.T:Right,OK.G4:He’sfedupbeingpoorandnothavinggoodplacestolive.Hethinks,‘I’mfedupwithallthis,Ineedtodosomethingbetter!’But,really,thebetterthingwaswrong.T:…Whatdoyouthinkhedid,then?G4:Well…herealizeditwaswrong.G1:Well,thethingwas,hecrushedthewaterlilysoafterwards,like,herealizedwhathehaddoneandhewasreallymadwithhimself.T:It’sadream,it’snotnecessarilyanythinghe’sdone.Whatdoyouthinkthismeans?(picksupthelilyandcrushesit.Handsshootup)G5:It’stheStarMaiden.T:Sowhat’shedonetoher?Many:He’skilledher.T:Whydoyouthinkthat’sthelastthinginhisdream,whenhewakesuphegoes…?(covershisfacewithhishands)Whatdoesitmean?What’sitmakinghimfeel?G5:Angry.G6:Mad.B3:Likesomeone’stellinghimoff.B2:Ithinkthatthewaterlilyislikehislandandhe’scrusheditwhenhe’ssoldit,likehe’sgotridofit,justforhimself.B4:It’sfreedom,gettingawayfromthings…hardthings…thingslike,livingliketrampsallaroundtheplaceandnothavinggoodfood.T:…Doesanyonethinkhemighthavesoldthelandnotjustforhimselfbuthe’sstillfeelingbadaboutwhathe’sdone?…(severalhandsgoup)B5:Hemightfeel,tohelppeoplecoshe’sgotthemoneytomake,like,thepowertoimprovetheirlives,givingthemwaterandthingsandstufflikethat.T:…whymighthestillfeelsobadaboutit?B1:Hemayhavefallenoutwithhispeople,withhistribe,thenhetookthelandawayfromthem.Nowheknowswhathe’sdoneandhecan’tgivethelandbacktothem.G1:Ithinkhe’sdonesomethingbadtohispeopleandwithoutaskingthemwhattheywantedfirst.But,like,he’sjustgoneandmadethisdecisionanddidn’taskthemandhemighthavedonetheoppositetowhattheywant. 146THESTARMAIDEN:MORALANDCULTURALVALUESB4:He’sbetrayingtheStarMaidenscoshe’sleavingthem.B6:Ithinkthathisgrandparentssaidthattheirpeoplewouldstayuntilthewater’sgonesour,likethey’llkeepongoinguntil,like,it’sallgonebuthe’schangedthat,bytakingthelandandwaterfromthemandgivingittosomeoneelseformoney.B3:He’sscaredcoshisgrandmaandgrandadmadearuleandhefeelsthathe’sbreakingit.G6:Ithinkhewantstosellthelandbecauseheknewhistribewerepoorandprobablyhethought,like,becausewe’repoorIshouldselltheland.Butjustbecausehispeoplearepoor,itdoesn’tmeanthattheydon’twanttoliveonthisland.Itistobeemphasizedthatallofthechildren’scommentswere,andwereunderstoodtobe,speculative,inthemodeof‘perhaps’,eventhoughtheyoftenchosetoexpressthesespeculationsassubstantivestatements.Immediately,thecontract,aformalsymbolofasocial,moralcode,isseentobeattheheartofthetensionandtheviceofmoralcowardice,ofgivingin,isofferedtoaccountfortheChief’sdiscomfort.Girl3seesitasdeeperthanthis;theChiefhasbetrayedhispeopleandfailedinhisobligationsastheirleader.Boy2detectsselfishnessinthecontrastbetweentheChief’sowndisplayofwealthandhispeople’spoverty;andalsoinhisdespoticactionandaggressiveindividualism.Hiscrime,inthisboy’seyes,istobeincriminatedinthedispossessionandresultinghomelessnessofhiscommunity.Girl4isthefirsttodescribeamotivefortheChief’sactionbutseeshisowndesireforpersonalbettermentasunjustifiable,sensingthatasubsequentrealizationofthishascausedhissenseofremorse.TheChief’scrushingofthewaterlilyisfirstinterpretedasaprojectedactofaggressivedestruction,directedreallyathimselfbutisthenseenverylucidlybyBoy2asentirelysymbolic.Itisinterestingthatthechildren’sresponsesthroughoutshowthattheyunderstandthefeelingsassociatedwithguiltbutneverarticulateitasaconcept.ItissensedintheChief’sbodylanguage,astheangerwhichexpressestheshameandfrustrationthatachildcanexperiencewhenscoldedbyanadult;hencetheFreudiandepictionofguilthere,whichenvisionsaparentalfigurecensuringtheChief.Boy4expresseswithsomesensitivityanunderstandingoftheharshnessoflifeonthereservationandseesthatthemoneycouldbeusedtobuyfreedom,whichhedefinesineconomicterms.ThereisaswiftresponsewhentheTeachersuggeststhattheremightbeapossiblealtruisticexplanationfortheChief’sact.ThisisvoicedbyBoy5andrecognizesthattheChiefcouldhavebeenactingintheeconomicinterestofhistribe.Boy1speculatesthatitmight,infact,havebeenavindictiveaction,regrettedaftertheevent,whileGirl1passesjudgmentontheChief’squalitiesofleadership.Boy4returnstotheconceptoftreachery,thistimeevokedthroughthesymboloftheStarMaidenwhileBoy3seesthefactthattheChief’sgrandparentsutteredtheproverbasparticularlysignificant.This,tohim,givesitthestatusofaruleandsuggeststhatthetiesofkinshiparesignificantbuthavebeendisrupted.Finally,Girl6givesaveryconciseandbalancedappreciationofthefactthatthiscouldbeastoryofaconflictbetweeneconomicinterests,asdefinedbyaleader,andthehistoricalandculturalattachmentsofthepeopleheistryingtoserve.Theimageitselfwas‘imposed’bytheteacherbutitsmeaningwasnot;andthechildren’sinterpretationsweresomanypossiblestories,speculativeandcommunal, DRAMA,NARRATIVEANDMORALEDUCATION147clusteringaroundavarietyofthickconceptsandevokinganumberofinterweavingmoralthemes.Thechildrencouldseestoriesofcowardice,oftreachery,vindictiveness,tyranny,andunjustdispossession.Theycouldalsoseethestoryofaclashbetweeneconomicandculturalforces,ofstabilityandchange,ofwell-intentionedbutflawedleadership.ThislatterpointillustratesMacIntyre’sargument:thatitwaswithintheChief’ssocialroleasleaderthatchildrenidentifiedhismoralfunction—todorightbyhispeopleandupholdthetraditionsofthetribe.Theyarticulatedthisbysuggestingdifferentnarrativestoexplainthedreamwhich,touseLouisArnaudReid’sterm,wereapprehendedratherthancomprehendedfromtheresonanceofthesymbolism(Reed,1980).J.H.vanderHoophasdescribedsymbolsas:thechiefmeansbywhichthehumanmindexpressesnotsomuchthoseideaswhichithasoutgrown,orwishestoconceal,butthosewhichithasnotyetmastered.(citedinNowottny,1962,p.174)Torephrasethisinsightspeculatively,perhapsitisthroughsymbolismthatchildrencanappreciateandlearntoexpressideastheyhavenotyetmastered.Withthisinmind,itisworthexamininghowthechildrenmadedramaticuseofthestarflower—thesymbollinkingourimprovisedstorydialogicallywiththeoriginal—asanaidtomakingmoralsenseofthedrama.Thestarflowersthechildrenmadewereoftissuepaper.Likearealwaterlily,theywereprettybutfragile.Theritualofbringingthemintothehallandlayingthemonthepaperatthestartofeachofthefinaltwosessionswasaphysicalreminderofthisandofthestory’sclosingwords.Touchthemgently.’Ihad,infact,mademyownstarflowerandhadplaceditonthe‘lake’butnotallofthechildrenrealizedthis.SowhenIpickeditupandcrushedit,theeffectwasmarkedasthemetaxiswassoacute.HerewasI,ateacher,destroyingsomething,perhapstheworkofachildintheclass.Thefictionalactofdestructionwasrepresentedbyarealactofdestructionandthechildren’sfacesinitiallyregisteredshock;fornotonlyhadthemoraloftheinitialstorybeencontravenedbutso,theyfelt—foraninstant—hadthemoralcodeoftheclassroom.9Commentsinthetranscriptaboverevealtheextenttowhich,onthefictionallevel,thechildrenwereabletoidentifythisactofdestructionasasymbolicactofviolenceagainsttheStarMaiden,againstthelandwheretheChief’speoplelivedand,byanalogy,againsttheirvaluesandbeliefs.This,Ibelieve,persistedintheirmindsasthemoraltouchstonethroughouttherestofthedrama.Inthefourthsession,whentheChiefspokeincollectiverolewithhisgrandfather,thefollowingexchangetookplace:Chief:You’llbebreakingtheStarMaiden’sheart.Gran:You’retheonewho’llbreaktheStarMaiden’sheartbysellingtheland.Chief:Why?Gran:Becauseshecameheretosettleandweletherinandnowyou’retakingallthatawayfromher.Thatisnolongerherlandandsheisoneofus.Thiswasechoedsoonafterinthescenewhere,inroleastheirChief,Iaddressedthechildrenasmypeople: 148THESTARMAIDEN:MORALANDCULTURALVALUESBoy:Yousoldtheland.Getitback,oryouarenotanIndian,you’reacityperson.Tchr:AreyousayingIwillnotbeoneofyou?Boy:Yes.Tchr:I’llalwaysbeoneofyou.Girl:Ifyoudestroyourlakeandtheliliesinit,youareactuallykillingaperson.Someonethatwelovedandshelovedus.Tchr:Aperson(pointingtothelake).Buttheyaren’tpeople,they’reflowers.Girl:Haveyouforgottenwhattheymean?Tchr:Whatdotheymean?Girl:They’reastarfromthesky.Tchr:Butthat’sastory,it’sjustastory.Girl:Itisn’t.UsIndiansbelieveinit.IfyouareanIndian,youshould,too.Tchr:Inthecity,ifyoutoldthemthatstory,theywouldsay,‘It’sanicestory.’Ifyousaidyoubelievedit’strue,they’dlaughatyou.Girl:Letthemlaugh.It’sourbeliefs.Thewordsofthegirlinthisexchangeresonatewithspiritualsignificance.Atthismomentinthedrama,theStarMaidenandherstoryaredefinedassomethingsacred,asasymbolofthevaluesandbeliefsofapeopleandtheirbetrayalbytheChiefisseenasabetrayalofhisownculturalidentity.OnceagainweneedtorememberthatsuchanunderstandingwasperhapsnotdifficultforthisCatholicchild;for,ifshecouldbelieveinrealitythatawaferofbreadcouldbetransformedintothefleshoftheSonofGodthenshecouldmanageafictionwheretokillalilywas,indeed,tokillaperson.Thisdoesnotdiminishtheeffectivenessofthedramaticsymbolismbutemphasizesthatitspowerlayinitsabilitytoactivateandtransform,throughart,valueswhichwerealreadypresentwithintheparticipants.CulturalRepresentationandMoralInterpretationInapreviouscasestudyIarguedthatHeathcote’sbrotherhoodcodecouldbedeployedbyteacher-in-roletomakesimplisticmoralmeaningsrepresentedinarchetypalcharactersmoreexpansive.Inthisdrama,mattersweremorecomplexasbothcharacterswerenewcreationsandtheirmeaningswerebuiltnotfromtheirrepresentationswithinthetextoftheoriginalstorybutbytheirdialogicalrelationshipwiththevaluesitembodiedandthesymbolsitcontained.IftheGrandfatherwasinthebrotherhoodofallthosewhoarevictimsofprejudiceandofeconomic‘progress’andofthosewhoresistchange,hewasalsointhebrotherhoodofthoseattachedtohistoricalvaluesandtraditions;whohavefaithinreligiousstories;whoplacespiritualvaluesabovematerialvalues.TheChief,ontheotherhand,wasinthebrotherhoodofallthosewhoembracematerialvalues;whobelievetheyhavetheunderstandingtoactinthebestinterestofothers.Hewasalsointhebrotherhoodofthosewhorejectthebeliefsuponwhichtheywereraised;whocompromisetheirculturalidentities;whoembracematerialvaluesattheexpenseofspiritualvalues. DRAMA,NARRATIVEANDMORALEDUCATION149Myintentionwastocreatethesecharactersashistoricized,non-mythicfigures,withtheGrandfatherandtheChieffindingeachotheronopposingsideswhenencounteringthehistoricalforcesofculturalandeconomicchange.Thiswould,Ihoped,workagainsttheflawedimageofthenoblesavageandengagechildren,inroleasmembersofthetribe,withagenuinelyhistoricizedmoralconflict.ThefinalconfrontationbetweenChiefandtribewouldbecomethesceneinwhichthisconflictwouldbearticulated.Itwas,anditwaspowerful,butnotinthemannerIhadintendedanditisdebatableastohowfarthedramabecamehistoricizedinanyrealsense.WhenintroducingtheGrandfatherintothedramaIusedtheconventionofthespokenstagedirection,focusingcarefullyoneachitemofcostumebeforeIputiton.Thishatisanoldhat,whitewithage.Thegrandfathercan’taffordanother.Heneedsthishattoprotecthisheadagainsttherain.ItisnotanIndianhatbutheusesit….Ablanket,wovenbyhiswife,manyyearsago.AtraditionalIndianblanketwhichkeepshimwarminwinter….Astick.He’sold,notasstrongasheoncewas.Thesedescriptionsemphasizedthestatusoftheoldmanasvictimandtheitemsofcostumeactedasdeicticsignifiersofthisfactthroughouthisappearance.Thefactthatherepresentedaworldunderthreatwasreinforcedbyhisspeech.Ispokeinshort,simplesentences,similartothoseoftheEsbensentext,echoingitsnostalgictonesandtheculturalreferencesevokedthroughitsrhythms.Peopleinthecity,theyarenotatpeace.Theyshout,theymovetoofast,theyappeartometobeangry.Mypeopleusedtoliketositinthesun,tolistentothesoundsofthenaturalworld,tolivebyrunningwaters.Onreflection,theseexamplesrevealthedangerofreplacingonesentimentalized,culturalstereotype—thenoblesavage—withanother—theequallynobleandwise,oldIndian.Ifthehatandtheblanketweremeanttohistoricizetheoldmanthentheydidsoinaveryimpreciseway.TheywerenotchosenfromanyknowledgeIhadofthemodernOjibwaytribebutweredrawnfromculturalrepresentationsofNativeAmericanpeopleIcouldrecallfromdocumentaryandfilmandwereusedprimarilyforfunctionalreasons.Thebowlerhat,inparticular,couldbeartfullycontrastedwithanewer,smarterversionwornlaterbytheChief,bearingthedifferentconnotationsofacitybusinessman.Therewasatension,therefore,betweenartisticefficiencyandculturalaccuracyandIwascavalierinmyapproachtothelatterforthesakeoftheformer.Ifthetwomenwererepresentedwithalackofhistoricalandgeographicalprecisionthenso,too,wastheconflicttheyevoked.Thiswasanentirelyfictionalrepresentation,drawnfromaknowledgethatthereexistinCanadaandtheUSANativeAmericanswhohavebecomemillionairesfromrunninggamblingcasinosontheirreservations,aswellasthosewhocontinuetosufferpovertyfromtheirhistoricaldispossession.Inmydefence,Icanarguethatmyaimwasnotprecise,historicalaccuracybuttherepresentationthroughdramaticfictionofanhistoricallyplausiblemoralconflict,using 150THESTARMAIDEN:MORALANDCULTURALVALUESthoseresourcesIcouldbestmuster.Ifthedramalackedacertainkindoftruthfulnessbaseduponculturalspecificity,itwas,perhaps,specificenoughforthesechildren,thousandsofmilesawayandinanotherculture.Nevertheless,theextenttowhichthechildrenwereabletoappreciatethisconflictremainsdebatable;andif,asIhaveargued,themoralpowerofthestory’ssymbolismcanbelargelyexplainedbyitsChristiananalogies,weneedtoviewthenatureofanymorallearningwhichtookplacewithinthisfinalsessionnotonlyfromwithintheformofthedramabutfromwithintheboundariesofthechildren’sownculturalidentities.Theoldmanmayhavebecomeaculturalstereotype,vergingonthemythic,butdespitethis—orpossiblybecauseofit—heprovedtobeaveryefficientdramaticcreation.10Whengiventhechancetohot-seathim,thechildrenwerequicktoconveytheirsympathyinquestionswhichdenotedamoralstandpointaswellasasenseofemotionalconnectedness.‘Doyouthinkpeopleignoreyoubecauseofyourcolour?’‘Apartfromyourgrandson,isthereanyotherfamilyyoucouldturnto?’‘Sincehe’sbeeninthecity,doyoufeelalone?’‘Howdoyoufeelaboutthewayyoulive,likeinshacks?’‘Howdoyoufeelnowthattheland’sbeentakenawayfromyou?’ThesequestionsrevealsympathyfortheGrandfatherasavictimofracism,loneliness,povertyanddispossession,sympathiesarousedbythevisualandsensorialqualitiesofhisembodimentasmuchasbythesenseofthewordshespoke.Stereotypehemayhavebeen,buthewasnonethelessaclearpoeticsymbol,containingapowerful,moralcharge.Forwhatintriguedthechildrenmostofallwhenquestioningtheoldman,wastheconflictbetweengrandfatherandgrandson.Inparticular,theirkinshiptookonsymbolicimportanceasitdeepenedtheirsenseoftreachery.‘Doyoufeelangrybecauseyourgrandsonhasbetrayedyou?’‘DoyoustillcounthimasaNativeAmerican?’ThegrandfatherwasseenasavictiminthesamesenseaswastheStarMaidenandthechildrenevidentlydidunderstandthatheembodiedawholesetofvaluesatoddswiththosebeingrepresentedbytheChief.Ashisgrandfather,IofferedsomesympathyfortheChief’sactionswhentheyquestionedmeaboutthem:‘Youthinkhehasbetrayedusbysellingtheland?Heismygrandson.Iamsurewhathedoeshedoesbecausehethinksitisgoodforus.’‘Inhisdreamshewillalwaysbeoneofus,thoughinhislifehemaytrytopretendnot.’However,whentheymethim,theChieffailedtowintheirsympathiesinthewaythegrandfatherhaddone.WhenaddressingthetribeasChief,Ispokebriskly,confidently,authoritativelybutpassionatelyandwithconviction.Iwasrespectful,listenedandfoundnumerouswaysto DRAMA,NARRATIVEANDMORALEDUCATION151projectmyargument.Iadmittedtobeingsaddenedbytheiraccusationsofbetrayalandconveyed,throughgesture,feelingswhichechoedtheremorseandinnerconflictthechildrenhadwitnessedinthedream.NoneofthiswasenoughtomovethechildrenfromapositionofhostilityandanunshiftingexpressionofsupportforthevaluesrepresentedinthefigureoftheoldmanandinthesymboloftheStarMaiden.AstheChief’sargumentsinfavourofahospital,newhousing,jobsandbetterprospectsfortheyoungfallondeafearstimeandtimeagain,thewordsofthechildreninrolecarryechoesofthoseusedearlierbytheGrandfather;referencestoancestorsandtoaloveofthelandresonatethroughoutasthechildreninrolepassjudgmentontheChief,condemninghimasadestroyeroftraditionandasanoutcastofhistribe.‘We’velivedhereforcenturies.Noweverythingisgoingtobedemolished’‘Attheendofthestoryitsaysrememberandyou’renotrememberinganyofit.You’rejustdestroyingtheStarMaiden’Yousayyouwanttobeoneofusallthetime.Butyou’renot,becauseyou’redoingthingsallwrong’‘Yousoldtheland.Getitbackoryou’renotanIndian.’Itisobvious,onreflection,thattherewasadramaticimbalanceinfavouroftheGrandfather’sposition.Notonlywashecastinthepowerfullysympatheticroleasvictimbut,asguardianoftheStarMaiden,hewasanembodimentofthevalueswhichIhadspentsomuchpedagogicalenergyincultivating,throughdramaandthroughritual.TheChief,ontheotherhand,hadbeenseentodestroyastarflower,themoraltouchstoneofthedrama.Asadramaticcreation,hemayhavebeenmorethanaculturalstereotypebutIsingularlyfailedtoarouseanysympathyforhisdilemma.Consequently,theclimaxwhichwasmeanttoengagethechildreninhistoryratherthanmyth,howevercontentiousthisversionofhistorymighthavebeen,failedtodoso.PerhapsthechildrenweretooyoungtosympathizewiththemoralconflictoftheChief,althoughinanearlierpartofthedramaoneboyatleasthadshownsomeappreciationofhismotivesandcouldfeelforhisdilemma.WhenanalysinganimagecreatedbyagroupofgirlsshowingtheChiefbeingcoercedbybusinessmentosignthecontract,hehadsuggestedthattheChiefwasthinking‘WhateverIdo,it’swrong.’Whenpressed,heexplainedthatthetribewouldbehappyiftheChiefdidnotsellthelandbutwithoutthemoneyhecouldn’thelphispeople.Thiswasasensitivedramaticinsight,castingtheChiefintheroleoftragicagent.‘Thetragicagent’,writesMarthaNussbaum,‘sensesthatnomatterhowhechooseshewillbeleftwithsomeregretthathedidnotdotheotherthing’(1986,p.27).However,thisunderstandingwasnotatallgeneral.Ihadassumedthatthechildrenwouldhavenoprobleminunderstandinghisaltruisticconcernsforthematerialneedsofhistribebutoneboy’scommentsattheendofthesessionwererevealing.‘Well,’hesaid,‘theideasaboutthehospitalsandthehousesweregoodbutwestilllikethelandthewayitusedtobe.’Forhim,mythinthisdramahadclearlytriumphedoverhistoryand,inhisimagination,hewaslivingmoreinthismythicalpastthanonthepresentdayreservation.Onreflection,thisishardlysurprising;theidylliclifeportrayedintheimagesofthebook 152THESTARMAIDEN:MORALANDCULTURALVALUESandcelebratedinthedancewasafarmoreappealing,utopianvisionfora10year-oldtolingerinthantheChief’spromisedworldofhospitals,housesandschools.Thedialogueinthefinalscene,however,indicatesthattherewasafurther,perhapsmoresignificantundercurrentrunninginfavourofthemythandthiswasfurtheremphasizedinthediscussionafterthedrama.‘What’smoreimportantthanmoney?’Iaskedandagirlreplied‘Theirstories,becausetheStarMaidenstoryislikeasymboloftheirlife,costhat’swhatyoubelievein.You’vegottostickupforwhatyoubelievein’Suchaninsight,Iwouldhazard,didnotemanatefromthedramaalonebutprimarilyfromthischild’sunderstandingofherownreligiousfaith.Theachievementofthedramawastohelpherarticulateanappreciationthatpeopleofculturesotherthanherownmightfeelthesamewayabouttheirbeliefsasshedidabouthers.Ifpreviousexampleshaveshownthatthechildren’sownmoralandspiritualvalueshadhelpedthemengagedeeplywiththedrama,heretheycanbeseentohaveinformedthemoralmeaningsitconstructed.Andthecollectivemoralstatementwhichresultedwasapowerfulone,consistingofastrongaffirmationofthemoralandspiritualvaluescentraltoEsbensen’stale.InbeingpresentedwithaversionofamythmoreanalogoustotheirownthantoOjibwaymythology,thechildrencouldnonethelesslearnandarticulaterespectforculturaldifference;andthisillustratestheself-othercontinuum,referredtoinChapter5,attheheartofdrama’spotentialformorallearning.11Itwastheworldofothernesswhichactivatedandstretchedthechildren’sownmoralresourcesintoadramaticstatementwhichbecameanexampleoficonicratherthandialecticaction.Themindsofthechildrenwerenotchangedandtheirresponsesrevealanaffirmationofbeliefratherthanachangeinbelief;butinthisaffirmationtherelaythepossibilityofcatharticillumination,fordevelopingwhatNussbaumhasdefinedas:‘aricherself-understandingconcerningtheattachmentsandvaluesthatsupporttheresponses’(1986,p.388).ConclusionRustomBharuchahasbeenlargelyresponsibleforbringingargumentsconcerningthepoliticsofculturalrepresentationintothearenaofmodernperformancestudiesand,indoingso,hasmountedastrongattackonPeterBrook’sproductionoftheMahabharata.Whatwesterncriticsacclaimedasatriumphofinter-culturalperformance,celebratingamasterpiecehithertoneglectedbyEurocentric,globalculture,BharuchadenouncesasacontinuationofBritisheconomicmisappropriationofIndia’sculturalresources.Fromhisownculturalperspective,hemountsasharpandastuteanalysisofwhatheseesastheconceptualandperformativeshortcomingsofBrook’sadaptation,whichheseesasexemplifying:…aparticularkindofwesternrepresentationwhichnegatesthenon-westerncontextofitsborrowing.Brookhasnotgrownupwiththeepicinhischildhood,unlikemostIndians,whohaveinternalizedtheMahabharatathroughatorrentofemotions,thoughts,taboos,conceptsandfantasies.(1993,p.70) DRAMA,NARRATIVEANDMORALEDUCATION153IftheinternalizationoftheMahabharata’sspiritualconceptsandvaluesiswhatrendersitcomprehensibletothosewhohavegrownupwithitintheHindufaith,anywesterndirectormust,Bharuchaargues,confrontthemeaningsofsuchanelusivetextwithinitsownculturalcontext.HehintsthatBrookfoundthisimpossibleandsuggeststhat,insteadofmisrepresenting‘other’cultures,heshould:‘…focusattentiononhisownculturalartefacts,theepicsofwesterncivilizationliketheIliadortheOdyssey,whichheismorelikelytounderstand’(op.cit.,p.70).Bharucha’scriticismsofBrookshouldactasatartwarningtoanyonewishingtousestoriesfromotherculturesfordramaticpurposesandareverymuchinlinewiththecriticismsofMiracleeandAtwood,voicedearlier.MyattemptstodialogizethestoryofTheStarMaideninordertoaddresssomeoftheproblemsofculturalrepresentationwere,inaccordancewithBharucha’sarguments,boundtofail.ThedramadidnotattempttostripthetaleofChris-tiananalogiesinordertogainanunderstandingofthestory’srealsignificanceforitsoriginaltellers,theOjibwaypeople.Herethereremainedadeepandobscureheartofdarkness.Withoutmeaningto,Ididquitetheopposite;IharnessedandenhancedtheChristiansymbolismandthemoralmeaningsimposedbyCopwayandEsbensenrespectively.Moreover,intheteethofaperspectivewhichmustregardthisasculturalmisappropriation,Ihavearguedthattheseculturalaccretionswerewhatprovidedthestoryandthedramawithmoralandsymbolicpowerfortheseparticularchildren.Myaimstohistoricizethestorythroughdramawerepossiblymisconceivedandcertainlydidnotwork;andamemberoftheOjibwaypeoplemaywellhavefoundthemdeeplyinsulting.Ontheotherhand,likethevalueswithintheEsbensentext,theywereofethicalimportancetoourcontemporaryworldanditencouragedthechildrentoarticulateattitudesofnon-racism,stewardshipandrespectforthebeliefsofothers.Inthefinalanalysis,Iamhappytoarguethatthis,atleast,shouldnotbeoffensivetoright-mindedpeople;andifthisconstitutesthejudgmentandaspirationofoneofAtwood’s‘well-meaningliberals’,sobeit.ToparaphraseInglis,liberalismneednotbeaswear-word.Itmaybeasmuchapowerfulsourceforgoodandpositiveactionasitmaybeadeceptivelycomplacentpervasionofthespirit.Andsotoo,Isuggest,werethestoryandthedramaofTheStarMaiden.Notes1AlthoughthereiscurrentlysomedoubtastowhetherChiefSeattleeverdeliveredthespeechforwhichhehasbecomefamous,itsinfluencepersists.See,forexample,theresourcepackpublishedbytheUnitedSocietyforthePropagationoftheGospel(1984).2SallyHunter,aprofessorofChildren’sLiteraturewholivesinSt.Paul,USA,insiststhatthereisnoEden-likestoryinOjibwaymythology.IamgratefulforBarbaraJusterEsbensenforthisinformation.3Op.cit.,p.viii,wherehespecificallyaddressestheprefaceofhisbook‘TotheChristianandthePhilanthropist’.4CopwayopenlydeclareshisloveforEnglishliteratureand,onp.viiiofhispreface,indicateshisadmirationfortheliterarystylesofIrvingandMacauley. 154THESTARMAIDEN:MORALANDCULTURALVALUES5ThiswastakenfromtheteachingpackIndiansandPioneers,2DPublications.6Ihavesincedevelopedthisdanceinworkshopswithstudentsandteachers.AteacherwhomIgreatlyrespectvoicedhisdoubtsaboutit,suggestingthatthemovementsandmusicamountedtoaformofinsulting,culturaltokenism.Theproblemofculturalrepresentationwillbecomeamajorthemeofthiscasestudybut,inthiscase,Iremainunconvincedthatthereisanargumenttoanswer.ThedancewasillustrativeofthestoryanddidnotpurportinanywaytoemulatehowtheOjibwaymightthemselveshavedancedorrepresentedthestory.Iftheobjectionisessentiallytoanyformofworkingwiththestory,itisanissueIaddressintheconclusion.7ThisparadoxicalcapacityforarttomakeusfeelemotionthroughachievingdistancefromitsobjectwasbrieflydiscussedandreferredtoinChapter5.O’Toole(1992,p.110)definesthosetaskswhereparticipantsworkasartistsasthosewhichachievemaximumroledistance.8Thisisareference,ofcourse,toSuzanneLanger’sphrasewherepeopleindramaaredefinedas‘makersofthefuture’.SeeLanger,1953,p.307.9Foranotherexampleofhowasimple,destructiveactindramacanattainstrong,moralsignificance,seetheearliercasestudyonthetaleofTheBrahminandtheThief.10StaffordandBranston(1996,p.90)makethepointthat,althoughthewordstereotypetendstoalwayscarrypejorativeassociations,astereotypicalrepresentationneednot,perse,havenegativeeffects.Theydefinestereotypingasa‘processofcategorizationnecessarytomakesenseoftheworld’.11SeeAppendix3,wherechildrenillustratetheirworkwithiconicreferencesfromtheirownreligion. ConclusionTheissueswhichhavedriventhisstudyarebeingincreasinglyrecognizedassignificant.IhavealreadyreferredtoworkbyBairdSaenger(1993)andZipes(1996)intheUnitedStatesand,inBritain,recentpublicationsbyMurris(1992)andtheCitizenshipFoundation(RoweandNewton,1994)showconcernsandapproacheswhichareilluminatinginthewaystheyreflectanddivergefromtheargumentsdevelopedoverthepreviouschapers(seealsoFox,1996).BothBritishprojectsareaimedatprimaryschoolsandarepresentedasteachers’packs,withstoriesastheircentralresource.Murris,inparticular,isopenlyindebtedtotheworkofLipman(1980,1988)andthePhilosophyinSchoolsProjectheinspired.Assuch,moralphilosophyisoneofitsmajorconcernsanditspedagogyisalmostentirelycentredonclassroomdiscussionaimedatencouragingchildrentomovefromtheparticularityofthestoriesintoaconsiderationof‘theuniversallawsthatgovernourthinking’(Murris,1992,p.10).Shecomments:Aphilosophicaldiscussioncanstartoffwithpersonal,emotionalexperiences,butshouldmoveonquicklytogettothemoregeneralrulesabouthowpeopleshouldbehave—rulesresultingfromanenquirybasedonreason.(ibid.,p.10)So,forexample,inworkrelatedtoSendak’sWheretheWildThingsAre,childrenarequestionedaboutissuesrelatingtoMischief,MannersandPunishmentandaskedtoconsider,forinstance,whetherwolvesarebad,whethertheyknowthedifferencebetweengoodandbadandtopostulateondifferentmeaningsoftheword‘bad’.Theemphasisitputsonrules,universallawsandobjectiverationalityareclearlydistinctivefrommyownwork.TheCitizenshipFoundation’spublicationentitledYou,Me,Usisamajorgovernmentinitiative,sponsoredbytheHomeOfficeandspecificallyaimedatdevelopingsocialandmoralresponsibilityinprimaryschools.Forthisreasonitmeritsrathermoredetailedattention.It,too,adoptsmoralreasoningasitschiefpedagogicalapproachtounderstandingtheissuesraisedbythestoriesitoffers.WhereasMurrismakesuseofpublishedpicturebooks,includingmanyinthefairytaletradition,You,Me,Ususestalesinavarietyofgenres,allofwhichhavebeenespeciallywrittenforthepack.Onceagain,Lipman’sinfluenceisopenlyacknowledgedandso,too,istheworkofKohlberg.Infact,therationaleprovidedintheteachers’notesidentifiesfiveprogressivestagesentirelydependentuponKohlberg’sdevelopmentalcategoriesandgreatstressislaiduponthekindofreasonschildrenofferinsupportoftheirbeliefs,withteachersbeingurgedto: 156CONCLUSIONpickuponthehigherormoreawarethinkingandsubtlyreinforceitbyofferingitbacktothegroupforfurtherconsideration.(RoweandNewton,1994,p.9)ThisstrategyistheoneproposedbyKohlbergforencouragingchildrentomoveontoahigherstageofmoralreasoning.Acleardistinctionismadebetweenthecognitiveandaffectivesidesofmoralawareness,withtheabilitytocareforothersandempathizewiththembeingidentifiedas‘anotherimportantfactor’whichhasaninfluenceonpeople’smoralactions(ibid.,p.10).lUniversalmoralprinciples(orGoldenRules,astheyarereferredto)underlieteachingmodulessuchasthoseonRulesandPropertyandPowerandthestoriesprovidedineachsectionhaveclear,didacticpurposes,similartothoseprovidedinAssemblybooks.So,forexample,themoduleonPropertyandPowerincludesaschoolstoryentitledALuckyBreakintendedtoprovokeadiscussionintothereasonswhystealingiswrong.TheYou,Me,Usmaterialisengagingandverywell-targeted,withinterestingandvariedpedagogicalapproachestosupplementtheclassroomdiscussion.Itsintentionsareunlikemyown,however,inasmuchasitsstorieshaveclearlyfocused,predeterminedmoralagendasaimedatencouragingaparticularpatternofsocialandmoralbehaviour.Thisdidacticismisalsoapparentinitssuggestionsfordramawork.WhereasMurris’ideasfordramaareinthemannerofdiversions,withlittlerelevancetothephilosophicalormoralagendabeingpursuedinthediscussionwork,theYou,Me,Uspackmakesuseofdramatoreinforceitsdidacticintentions.HavingworkedonthestoryALuckyBreak,forexample,childrenareaskedtomakeupaplaytoshowthepossibleeffects,bothmentalandphysical,ofstealingonavictim(op.cit.,p.136).Moresustainedroleplaysaresuggested,suchasanentiremodulewherechildrenaretopretendtheyhavebeenshipwreckedandarerequiredtoinventtherulesfortheirnewsocietyanddealwithaseriesofmoralandsocialdilemmaswhichsubsequentlyarise(op.cit.,pp.90–96).Here,theintentionisclearlytoteachchildrenabouttheneedforsocialrulesandtheworkingsofdemocracy.Thereare,therefore,somefundamentaldifferencesinapproachbetweentheYou,Me,Usmaterialandthetheworkdescribedinthisstudy.Ihavebeenscepticalofstoriesbeingusedforsimpledidacticpurposesandhavedeliberatelyworkedwithagenreofstorywheremoralvaluesareoftenobfuscatedorcontradictory.Iseedrama,itspotencyanditseffectiveness,asambiguous,attimesrisky,andregardthewholeareaofunderstandingandworkingwithvaluesasatonceinescapablebutdeeplyproblematic.Inaddition,thephilosophicalbasefromwhichIargueaviewofmoraleducationisinthebroaderareaofneo-Aristotelianethicsratherthanthepost-Kantianmoralitysystem.Itisimportant,therefore,toconsiderhowsuchanapproachmightinformaprimaryschool’smoraleducationpolicyandthekey,Ibelieve,liesinrelatingtwoprinciplesparadoxicallyattheheartoftheYou,Me,Usproject—thatofencouragingmoralenquirywhilebuildingcommunity—withthephilosophicalpremisespromotedbyWilliams(1985)andMacIntyre(1981).Essentiallythiswouldinvolveschoolsconsciouslyregardingthemselvesascommunitieswhichattempttodefine,promoteandenquireintothevirtues. DRAMA,NARRATIVEANDMORALEDUCATION157IamawareasIproposetheideaofschoolsas‘communitiesofvirtue’that,asWilliamspointsout,suchlanguagetodayhasanairofreactionary‘priggish-ness’aboutitandthatitisliabletobemisapprehended.Atfirstglance,itmightappeartoaspiretotheviewsofWilliamBennett,whoserecentpublicationTheBookofVirtues(1993)seekstoteachchildrenwhathedefinesas‘moralliteracy’throughaselectionofstoriesfromthewesternhistoricalandliterarycanonintendedtoinculcateafixedlistofvirtues.StoriessuchasHoratio’sdefenceofthebridgeareofferedalongsidepassagessuchasBadenPowell’sTheDutiesofaScoutasdefinitionsofaprescribedsetofvirtues,inthiscasethoseofCourageandDuty(op.cit.,p.217,p.470).‘Thepurposeofthisbook’,Bennettwrites:‘istoshowparents,teachers,studentsandchildrenwhatthevirtueslooklike,whattheyareinpractice,howtorecognizethemandhowtheywork’(1993,p.11).Theyare,therefore,afixedmoralcode,embodiedintheculturalheritageofthewesterntraditionandschoolsarestronglycriticizedforfailingtoteachthem.2ThisisverymuchthesametoneandperspectiveIproblematizedinmyintroductorychapter.MacIntyre’sperspective,whichinformsmyownviews,isdifferent.Virtuesexistandaredefinedbythecommunitieswhichpractisethem.Theyare,indeed,understoodaspartofatraditionwhichthesecommunitiesinheritbuttheyareonlyvigorouswhentheirnatureandtheirrelationshiptooneanotherarethesourceofargumentanddebate.Definingthevirtues—andhencethegoodlife—isastruggleanddifferentcommunitiesinhistoryhaverecognizedandcultivateddifferentvirtuesindifferentways.Thevirtuesexistfactually,asWilliamspointsout,inasmuchasweshareacommonvocabularythroughwhichwecannegotiateourunderstandingofthem.Thesethickconceptsarethevocabularyofethicsbutiftheyareencapsulatedwithintraditionsandthestorieswhicharepartofthesetraditions,thenwemustunderstandtheconceptoftraditionasanargument,anevolvingconversationtohelpcreatethefuture,notasasetofrigidprinciplestowhichwemustconform.Beinglocatedwithinhistoryisnotthesameasbeingitsslave.Theconceptofcommunityis,however,likemostoftheconceptsdebatedinthisstudy,complexandproblematic.Inasimplesense,mycommunityisoneofplace,andequateswithmyneighbourhoodormylocalarea.Butitmightalsobedeterminedbymywork.Asadramateacher,ImightregardtheteacherswithwhomIworkasmyimmediateprofessionalcommunityandthoseotherdramateacherswhosharecommoninterestsandbeliefsasmyextendedprofessionalcommunity.Therearealsofamilycommunities,ethniccommunities,religiouscommunitiesandothercommunitiesofsharedinterests,whetherpoliticalorculturalinnature.Overarchingallofthese,isthewesterncommunityofliberalcapitalism.Ibelongtoseveralofthesecommunitiesatonce.SomeIchoose,someIinherit,eachwithitsownperspectivesonparticularvirtueswhichcancomeintooppositionwithoneanother.Manyteachersunderstand,forexample,theconflictsthatcanexistbetweenthefamilyandtheprofessionalcommunityandthedifficultiesinvolvedinattemptingtobeagoodparentandagoodprofessionalatoneandthesametime.Theschoolistheforumwheredifferentcommunitiesofinterestmeetandoneofitsfundamentalchallengesistoforgeitselfintoaninstitutionconsciousofitsroleasacommunitywherecertainagreedvirtuesarecultivatedandlearned.Infact,inanerawhencommunitiesoffamily,workandplace 158CONCLUSIONareincreasinglyunstable,theschoolremainsoneofthefixed,communalspaceswherethiscultivationcanbetrustedtotakeplace.Thereisnothingneworrevolutionaryinthisidea.Williamsidentifiesthatthecultivationofthevirtues,whetherthisterminologybeusedornot,haslongbeenanaimofmoraleducation,socializationandeducationingeneral(1985,p.10).Infact,schoolsmustofnecessitydefineandpromoteparticularvirtuessuchasindustry,responsibility,honestyandrespectforothersanddrawupeitherimplicitorexplicitrulesystemstoencourageconformitytothem.AsSullivanhasexplained:Theschoolisnow,andhasalwaysbeen,aninstitutionimmersedinvalues.Infact,itlegitimatescurrentsocietalvaluesandconsolidatesthemforanewgeneration.Ifwearefacingavaluecrisis…itisacrisisoflegitimacyofthevaluesthatourcultureholds.(Modgil,1985,p.239)Thislatterpointunderlinesthedifficultiesthatschoolsfacebutvaluesnonethelessremainanareatheycannotavoid.Thelanguageofthevirtuesisacommonlanguage,however,andcanbeusedtonegotiatemeaning.Thevirtuespresentuswithaperspectivewhichseesmoralvaluesasneitherabsoluteandprescribednorrelativeandnegotiated.Suchaperspectiverecognizesthatcommunitiessharecommonvalues;thattruthfulness,honestyandjustice,forexample,arecommonvirtuesbutthatunderstandingtheirnatureinpracticemaywellvaryfromcommunalcontexttocommunalcontext.Issuesofhowandwhichvirtuesaretoberecognizedandencouragedwithinaparticularschoolemergefromargumentanddiscussion,tobeagreedanddefinedinpolicyandaimsstatementswhichevolveandaresubjecttoreview,takingaccountoftheneedsandinterestsofthedifferentcommunitiestheschoolserves.MechanismsforsuchproceduresalreadyexistinUKschools.Thisprocessaspirestocreatethemoralethosofaschoolwhichserves,aswehaveseen,toinitiatechildrenintomoralknowledge.Suchknowledge,however,asStenhouseinformsus,isonlyoneaspectoflearningandforafullmoraleducationchildrenneed,inaddition,training,instructionandinductionintomoralknowledge.Allfouraspectsareimportant,allhavedifferentemphasesandaschoolshouldmapoutinitspolicydocumentationinwhichareasofthecurriculumthedifferentemphaseswilloccur.Ihaveindicatedthat,initsemphasisongroupcooperation,onlistening,sharingandrespectingtheworkofothers,aswellasthroughtheopportunitiesdramaprovidesforchildrentofictionallypractisethevirtues,thatdramacanmakeanimportantcontributiontothesocialandmoraltrainingofyoungchildren.Butthemainpreoccupationsofthisstudyhavebeeninthemoreproblematicareaofinductiontomoralknowledgeandtheopportunitiesdramacanofferforenablingchildrentoexplorethenatureofthevirtuesandvicesasthickconcepts,manifestedinparticularsocialactions,playedoutwithinparticularsocialroles.Ifstoriesarethemeansbywhichwelearnhermeneuticallyaboutthevirtues,vicesandthenatureofthemorallife,wehaveseen,too,that,asteachers,weneedtoremainalerttoexactlywhattheyaretellingus.Dramacanbethemeansthroughwhichthesevaluesareopeneduptoquestionandareactivelyconversedwiththroughenactive,narrativestory-making.Hornbrookisrightwhenhearguesthatdrama’s DRAMA,NARRATIVEANDMORALEDUCATION159collective,moraldiscoursedoesnotstemfrom‘theprivatepreferencesofemotivism’butislocateduponthe‘stageofcriticaljudgment’(Hornbrook,1989,p.139).Throughdrama,theclassroomcanbecomethiscommunal,publicstagewherethevirtuescanbeproblematized,playedwith,subverted,reframed,orbroughtintoconflictwithoneanother.Throughgeneratingmoralengagementandactiveinquiry,dramacandeepenachild’ssensitivitytoandunderstandingofthecomplexitiesofthemorallife.Toadvocatethatteachersminetherichseamoftraditionalstoriesfromwithinavarietyofculturalsourcesis,ofcourse,partlyanethicalresponsetotherealityofpostmodern,globalcultureandtheethnicandculturaldiversitywithincontemporaryBritain.Butitismorethanthis.Theprojectbeganwithapragmaticobservation—thatdramasusingsuchstoriesaspre-textcouldcontainapowerful,moralcharge.Intheprocessoftheinquiry,Ihavesuggestedsometheoreticalexplanationastowhythisshouldbethecasebut,atitsconclusion,Iremainawarethatthesesuggestionsremainpartialandincomplete.IhaveonlytoucheduponwhatO’Neilldescribesasthecloserelationshipbetweencharactersandplotswithinmythicstoriesandthosewithindrama,andthisremainsanarea,Ibelieve,worthyoffurtherresearch.Itisinthenatureofareflectiveinquirysuchasthisthatfurtherquestionsshouldberaised,furtherlinesofinquirysuggested.InturningmyattentiontowhatIconsiderthesemightbe,IwillattempttoaddressthedifferentpartieswhomIhopedwouldbenefitfromthisresearchatitsoutset;practitionersandaca-demics,interestedindrama,traditionalstories,moraleducationandreflectiveinquiry.ItcouldbeofusetoprimaryteachersingeneraltoresearchintowaysinwhichthematerialcompiledbytheCitizenshipFoundationcouldbesupplementedtoengagechildreninthekindofdramaandmorallearningexperiencesIhavepromotedhere.Forexample,thekeyideasintheunitonPropertyandPowerarelistedasstealing,trust,punishmentandfairness,allofwhichpertaintothedramaworkpursuedaroundthestoriesoftheBrahmin,theThiefandtheOgreandJackandtheBeanstalk.Theappealofsuchaprojectisthatitwouldbeinformedbymaterialwhichpractisingprimaryteachershavefounduseful,coveringconceptswhichhaveprovedtoberelevanttochildren’smorallives.Suchaninquirycouldincludeabroaderinvestigationintothekindsofthickethicalconceptschildrenfinditrewardingtoexploreatdifferentagesandindifferentsocialcircumstances.Theseshouldspreadbeyondthoseconcernedwiththedevelopmentofgoodcitizenshipandcouldincludecourage,loyaltyandcompassionaswellasstewardship,toleranceandfairness.Theintentionwouldnot,ofcourse,betocreateanalternativestagesystemtoKohlberg’sbutalooseframeworkinformedbyprofessionalexperience,evaluationandreflection.Itwouldbevaluable,aswellasexploringnewresourcesofstorieswhichteachersmightfinduseful,tolookatthosethatarealreadyinwidespreaduseandbuildthemintosuchaproject.Thiswork,aimedatprimaryteachersingeneral,couldbecomplementedbyrelatedinquiriesofinteresttospecialistpractitionersofdrama.Throughoutthestudy,Ihaveventuredanumberofhypotheseswhichcouldbetakenfurther.Forexample,inthefirstcasestudyIusedaframeworkofsixcategorieswheredramacouldbeseentoprovideapedagogyforethicalinquiry;inChapter5IproposedthatBeckerman’sdistinctionsbetweeniconicanddialecticactioncouldprovideanon-ideologicalapproachtounderstandingmoralengagementindrama;and,althoughventuringintotheareaof 160CONCLUSIONcomedy,Iemphasizedthatthisremainsagreatlyunderresearchedareainthefieldofprocessdrama.Allthreeareascouldbecomefociformoreextensiveresearch,particularlywithprimaryschoolchildrenmoreexperiencedinthepracticesoftheartform,orwitholderchildrenorstudents,whoseconcernshavenotimpingedatallonthisparticularinquiry.InsuggestingthatMacIntyre’stheoriespresentavaluableandfreshperspectivefromwhichdramateacherscanplanformoraleducation,Ihaveimpliedacertaintheoreticalposition.Theprincipleunderlyingthispositionrecognizesthevirtuesasinherentlysocialandcommunalandthatitisopentoargumentastohowtheyarebestmanifestedinparticularcontexts.Childrenshould,byimplication,beencouragedtoexplorethevirtuesandthevicesinactionfromwithinspecificsocialroles—thoseofamother,aleader,orajournalist,forexample—inordertounderstandthemasthickconcepts,notasabstractprinciples.Suchexplorationsshouldembraceambivalenceandavoiddidacticism,notonlybecausedramaderivesitspowerfromsuchambivalencebutbecausethismatchestheethicallifeasitisexperiencedatitsmostacute.Asstoriesaretheformthroughwhichthisunderstandingismosteffectivelyconveyed,dramashouldapproachmoralissuesobliquely,throughstories,ratherthandirectly,throughovertlyissue-basedlessons.Dramasofthissortshouldallowchildrentolingerinthecomplexitiesofparticularsituationsandnotseektodrawoutprescribedmaximsorrulesaslessonswhichthedramahastaught;rathershouldsuchstoriesillustratethat,insituationswhererightandwronganswersareelusive,therecanstillbebetterorworsewaysoflivingone’slife.However,thistheoryisnotofferedinanyinstructionalsensebutasatestinggroundwhichhasemergedfrommyowntheoryinpractice,askeletoninneedoffleshwhichcanonlybenourishedbyfurtherresearchintopractice.Throughoutthisinquiry,inissuesoftheoryandpractice,formandcontent,valueshavebeenproblematicallybutunavoidablyattheheartofthings.ThemodelofreflectivepractitionerresearchIhaveprovidedwasadaptedtomyownparticularcircumstanceswithinthedemandsofaspecificfocusofinquiry.Itmayproveusefulininformingthethinkingoffellowpractitioner-researchersthroughthemethodologyitoffersbut,moresignificantly,throughitsunderlyingprinciplesandethicalconcerns.Fundamentally,theseaccepttheinescapabilityofvaluesbutrefusetobeparalysedbytheirubiquityorblindtotheirplurality.RatherbothresearchandpracticeareportrayedasactivitieswherewemustembracewhatSchefflerhascalleda‘doubleconsciousness…resolutenessunderuncertainty’,anattitudepreparedfor‘theredirectionofsuchresolutenesswithchangingevidence’(1985,pp.114,115).Suchanattituderecognizesthat,althoughgrandtheorymaynolongerbetheobjectiveofourinquiries,phronesis,orpracticalwisdom,remainsourgoal;andthat,althoughwecanonlyeverpartiallyobtainit,theknowledgewegainwhilesearchingcansustainusonourquest.Notes1Interestingly,Lipman’swritingsrejectbothmoraldevelopmentalstagetheory,whichheseesas‘incompatiblewithphilosophyandlegitimatemoraldiscussion’andtheseparationof DRAMA,NARRATIVEANDMORALEDUCATION161theaffectiveandcognitiveinmoraleducation,which,hecomments,is‘tomisunderstandthenatureoflearning’.SeeLipmanetal.(1980),p.154andp.162.2Bennetthaswrittentwobookstothiseffect:OurChildrenandOurCountry:ImprovingAmerica’sSchoolsandAffirmingtheCommonCulture;andTheDe-ValuingofAmerica:TheFightforOurCultureandOurChildren. 162 BibliographySourcesCOPWAY,G.(1978)‘TheStarandtheLily’,inIndianLifeandIndianHistory,NewYork:AMS.CROSSLEY-HOLLAND,K.(1987)‘JackandtheBeanstalk’,inBritishFolkTales,London:Orchard.EDENS,C.(1990)JackandtheBeanstalk,California:GreenTigerPressInc.EDGERTON,F.(1965)‘Brahmin,ThiefandOgre’,inPanchatantra,NewDelhi:OrientPaperbacks.ESBENSEN,B.J.(1988)TheStarMaiden,London:LittleBrown.EURIPIDES(1974)Hippolytos,BAGG,R.(transl),London:OxfordUniversityPress.JACOBS,J.(1993)‘JackandtheBeanstalk’,inEnglishFairyTales,London:Everyman.SAKI(1986)‘TheStoryteller’inTheCompleteSaki,London:Penguin.TABART,B.(1974)‘JackandtheBeanstalk’,inTheClassicFairyTales,OPIEI.andP.(ed),Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.THOMAS,V.(1992)‘TheBrahmin,theThiefandtheOgre’fromMoreStoriesfromthePanchatantra,NewDelhi:HemkuntPress.WALKER,L.J.(1961)‘TheStarMaiden’inRedIndianLegends:TribalTalesoftheGreatLakes,LongAcre,London:OdhamsPressLtd.WERTENBAKER,T.(1989)TheLoveoftheNightingale,London:FaberandFaber.PlaytextsAESCHYLUS(1988)TheOresteianTrilogy,VELLACOTT,P.(transl),London:Penguin.ANOUILH,J.(1951)Antigone,GALANTIERE,L.(transl),London:Methuen.BOND,E.(1979)TheWoman,London:Methuen.BRECHT,B.(1963)TheCaucasianChalkCircle,STERN,J.andT.(transl),London:Methuen.BRECHT,B.(1967)MotherCourageandherChildren,BENTLEY,E.(transl),London:Methuen.BRECHT,B.(1974)TheGoodPersonofSetzuan,WILLETT,J.(transl),London:EyreMethuen.BRECHT,B.(1980)LifeofGalileo,WILLETT,J.(transl),London:EyreMethuen.CHURCHILL,C.(1990)‘TopGirls’,inPlays:Two,London:Methuen.CHURCHILL,C.(1990)AMouthfulofBirds,London:Methuen.EURIPIDES(1972)Electra,VELLACOTT,P.(transl),Harmondsworth:Penguin.EURIPIDES(1973)‘TheTrojanWomen’,inTheBacchaeandOtherPlays,VELLACOTT,P.(transl),London:Penguin.Fo,D.andRAME,F.(1992)Plays:One,London:Methuen.GIRAUDOUX,J.(1935)LaGuerredeTroien’aurapasLieu,Paris:BernardGrasset.MOLIÈRE(1969)Tartuffe,Paris:Bordas.SARTRE,J.-P.(1947)LesMouches,Paris:Gallimard.SHAKESPEARE,W.(1951)JuliusCaesar,London:HarperCollins. 164DRAMA,NARRATIVEANDMORALEDUCATIONSHAKESPEARE,W.(1951)Macbeth,London:HarperCollins.ZOLA,E.(1989)ThérèseRaquin,Bath:AbsoluteClassics.CriticalTextsADELMAN,C.andJENKINS,D.(1976)‘Re-thinkingCaseStudy:NotesfromtheCambridgeConference’,CambridgeJournalofEducation,vol.6,no.3.AHLBERG,A.(1984)PleaseMrsButler,London:Penguin.ARIES,P.(1979)CenturiesofChildhood,Bungay,Suffolk,UK:Peregrine.ARNAUDREID,L.(1980)‘MeaningintheArts’,inTheArtsandPersonalGrowth,Oxford:Pergamon.ARTAUD,A.(1964)LeThéâtreetsonDouble,Saint-Amand(cher):Gallimard.ARTSCOUNCILOFGREATBRITAIN(1992)DramainSchools—ArtsCouncilGuidanceonDramaEducation,London:ACGB.AVERILL,J.R.(1985)TheSocialConstructionofEmotion:WithSpecialReferencetoLove’,inTheSocialConstructionofthePerson,GERGEN,K.andDAVIS,K.(ed),NewYork:Springer.AXTELL,J.(1981)TheEuropeanandtheIndian:EssaysintheEthnohistoryofColonialNorthAmerica,NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress.BAILEY,J.(1981)Themework,London:StainerandBell.BAIRDSAENGER,E.(1993)ExploringEthicsThroughChildren’sLiterature,PacificGrove,California:CriticalThinkingPress.BARTHES,R.(1973)Mythologies,London:Granada.BARTHES,R.(1977)Image,Music,Text,London:Fontana.BBC(1996)Today,6July.BECKERMAN,B.(1990)TheatricalPresentation,London:Routledge.BENJAMIN,W.(1992)‘TheStoryteller’,inIlluminations,London:Fontana.BENNETT,W.J.(1993)TheBookofVirtues:ATreasuryofGreatMoralStories,NewYork:SimonandSchuster.BERNSTEIN,M.A.(1981)‘Whenthecarnivalturnsbitter’,inBakhtin:EssaysandDialoguesonhisWork,MORSON,G.S.(ed),UniversityofChicagoPress.BERNSTEIN,R.(1976)TheRestructuringofSocialandPoliticalTheory,Philadelphia:UniversityofPhiladelphia.BEST,D.(1992)TheRationalityofFeeling,London:Falmer.BETTELHEIM,B.(1976)TheUsesofEnchantment:TheMeaningandImportanceofFairyTales,London:Penguin.BHARUCHA,R.(1993)TheatreandtheWorld,London:Routledge.BLOOM,A.(1987)TheClosingoftheAmericanMind,London:Penguin.BLUM,L.(1993)‘GilliganandKohlberg:ImplicationsforMoralTheory’,inAnEthicofCare,LARRABEE,M.J.(ed),NewYork:Routledge.BOAL,A.(1979)TheatreoftheOppressed,London:PlutoPress.BOLTON,G.(1979)TowardsaTheoryofDramainEducation,Harlow,UK:Longman(Harlow,UK:Longman.)BOLTON,G.(1984)DramaasEducation,Harlow,UK:Longman.BOLTON,G.(1992)NewPerspectivesonClassroomDrama,HemelHempstead,UK:SimonandSchuster.BOND,E.(1995)‘ABlastatourSmugTheatre’,TheGuardian,28January1995.BOOTH,D.(1994)StoryDrama,Ontario:Pembroke. BIBLIOGRAPHY165BRABECK,M.(1993)‘MoralJudgment:TheoryandResearchonDifferencesBetweenMalesandFemales’,inAnEthicofCare,LARRABEE,M.J.(ed),NewYork:Routledge.BRANSTON,G.andSTAFFORD,R.(1996)TheMediaStudent’sHandbook,London:Routledge.BRIGGS,R.(1973)JimandtheBeanstalk,London:PuffinBooks.BRODKIN,M.(1934)ArchetypalPatternsinPoetry:PsychologicalStudiesofImagination,London:OxfordUniversityPress.BROOK,P.(1968)TheEmptySpace,London:Penguin.BROOKER,P.(1988)BertoltBrecht:Dialectics,Poetry,Politics,London:CroomHelm.BROWNING,R.(1993)ThePiedPiper,illustrationsAndreAmstatz,London:Orchard.BRUNER,J.(1960)‘MythandIdentity’inMythandMythmaking,MURRAY,H.A.(ed),Boston:BeaconPress.BRUNER,J.(1986)ActualMinds,PossibleWorlds,Cambridge,Massachusetts:HarvardUniversityPress.BRUNER,J.(1990)ActsofMeaning,Cambridge,Mass:HarvardUniversityPress.CADUTO,M.andBRUCHAC,B.(1988a)KeepersoftheEarth,Colorado:FulcrumPress.CADUTO,M.andBRUCHAC,B.(1988b)KeepersoftheEarth:Teacher’sGuide,Colorado:FulcrumPress.CAMPBELL,J.(1949)TheHerowithaThousandFaces,Princeton,NJ:PrincetonUniversityPress.CAREY,G.(1996)‘Moralityismorethanamatterofopinion’,TheDailyTele-graph,5July.CARR,D.(1991)EducatingtheVirtues,London:Routledge.CARR,W.(1986)‘TheoriesofTheoryandPractice’,inJournalofPhilosophyofEducation,vol.20,no.2.CARR,W.(1987)‘WhatisanEducationalPractice?’,JournalofPhilosophyofEducation,vol.21.,no.2CARR,W.andKEMMIS,S.(1986)BecomingCritical,London:FalmerPress.CARROLL,J.(1996)‘EscapingtheInformationAbattoir:CriticalandTransformativeResearchinDramaClassrooms’,ResearchingDramaandArtsEducation,TAYLOR,P.(ed),London:FalmerPress.CHARNEY,M.(1978)ComedyHighandLow,NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress.CODE,L.(1991)WhatCanSheKnow?FeministTheoryandtheConstructionofKnowledge,Ithaca:CornellUniversityPress.COLBY,R.(1982)‘DramaasaMoralImperative’,2D,vol.2,no.1.COLBY,R.(1987)‘MoralEducationthroughDrama’,2D,vol.7,no.1COLES,R.(1986)TheMoralLifeofChildren,Boston:AtlanticMonthlyPress.CONNOR,S.(1989)PostmodernistCulture,Oxford,UK:BasilBlackwell.CONNOR,S.(1992)TheoryandCulturalValue,OxfordUK:BasilBlackwell.COOPER,J.F.(1966)TheLastoftheMohicans,London:Dent.COURTNEY,R.(1980)TheDramaticCurriculum,London:Heinemann.Cox,T.(1970)‘TheDevelopmentofDramaEducation1902–1944’,M.Ed.Thesis,UniversityofDurham.CULLINGFORD,C.(1992)ChildrenandSociety:Children’sAttitudestoPoliticsandPower,London:Cassell.DAVIES,G.(1983)PracticalPrimaryDrama,London:Heinemann.DAY,J.(1991a)TheMoralAudience:OntheNarrativeMediationofMoral‘Judgment’andMoral‘Action’,NarrativeandStorytelling:ImplicationsforMoralUnderstandingandMoralDevelopment,SanFrancisco:Jossey-Bass.DAY,J.(1991b)‘Role-takingrevisited:Narrativeandcognitivedevelopmentalinterpretationsofmoralgrowth’,TheJournalofMoralEducation,vol.20,no.3. 166DRAMA,NARRATIVEANDMORALEDUCATIONDENTITH,S.(1995)BakhtinianThought,London:Routledge.DICKINSON,H.(1969)MythontheModernStage,Urbana:UniversityofIllinoisPress.DONALDSON,M.(1978)Children’sMinds,London:Fontana,pp.19–24.DRAIN,R.(ed)(1995)TwentiethCenturyTheatre:ASourcebook,London:Routledge.EDMISTON,B.(1993)‘Whathaveyoutravelled?’,Drama,vol.1,no.3.EDMISTON,B.(1994)‘MorethanTalk:ABakhtinianPerspectiveonDramaEducationandChangeinUnderstanding’,TheNADIEJournal,vol.18,no.2.EDMISTON,B.(1995)‘DiscoveringRightActions:ForgingEthicalUnderstandingsthroughDialogicInteractions’,SelectedReadingsinDramaandTheatreEducation,Brisbane,Australia:NADIEPublications.EDMISTON,B.andWILHELM,J.(1996)‘PlayinginDifferentKeys:ResearchnotesforActionResearchersandReflectiveDramaPractitioners’,ResearchingDramaandArtsEducation,TAYLOR,P.(ed),London:Routledge.EISNER,E.(1985)TheArtofEducationalEvaluation,London:FalmerPress.EISNER,E.(1991)TheEnlightenedEye:QualitativeInquiryandtheEnhancementofEducationalPractice,NewYork:Macmillan.ELIADE,M.(1963)MythandReality,NewYork:HarperandRow.ELLIOTT,J.(1991)ActionResearchForEducationalChange,London:OpenUniversityPress.ERIKSON,E.(1977)ChildhoodandSociety,London:Paladin,pp.222–43.ESSLIN,M.(1984)Brecht:AChoiceofEvils,London:Methuen.ESSLIN,M.(1987)TheFieldofDrama,London:Methuen.EWEN,F.(1970)BertoltBrecht,HisLifeandHisTimes,London:CalderandBoyars.FLANAGAN,O.andJACKSON,K.(1993)‘Justice,CareandGender:TheKohlberg-GilliganDebateRevisited’,AnEthicofCare,LARRABEE,M.J.(ed),NewYork:Routledge.FLEMING,M.(1994)StartingDramaTeaching,London:DavidFulton.FLETCHER,H.(1995)‘RetrievingtheMother/OtherfromtheMythsandMarginsofO’Neill’s“SealWife”Drama’,NADIEJournal,vol.19,no.2.Fox,R.(1996)ThinkingMatters:StoriestoEncourageThinkingSkills,Exeter,UK:Southgate.FREEMAN,M.(1991)‘RewritingtheSelf:DevelopmentasMoralPractice’,NarrativeandStorytelling:ImplicationsforMoralDevelopment,TAPPAN,M.andPACKER,M.(ed),SanFrancisco:Jossey-Bass.FREEMAN,M.(1993)RewritingtheSelf:History,Self,Narrative,NewYork:Routledge.FRYE,N.(1957)AnatomyofCriticism,Princeton,NewJersey:PrincetonUniversityPress.FRYE,N.(1965)‘TheMythosofSpring:Comedy’,Comedy,CORRIGAN,R.W.(ed),NewYork:Chandler.GEERTZ,C.(1988)WorksandLives:TheAnthropologistasAuthor,California:StanfordUniversityPress.GÉRARD,A.(1993)ThePhaedraSyndrome:OfShameandGuiltinDrama,Amsterdam:Rodopi.GERGEN,KJ.(1991)TheSaturatedSelf:DilemmasofIdentityinContemporaryLife,NewYork:BasicBooks.GILLIGAN,C.(1982)InaDifferentVoice,Cambridge,Massachusetts:HarvardUniversityPress.GLASER,B.G.andSTRAUSS,A.L.(1967)TheDiscoveryofGroundedTheory:StrategiesforQualitativeResearch,Chicago:Aldine.GOLDBERG,S.(1993)AgentsandLives,Cambridge,UK:CambridgeUniversityPress.GRAVES,R.(1960)TheGreekMyths,vol.I,London:Penguin,p.165.GRAY,R.(1976)Brecht,theDramatist,Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.GREEN,J.R.(1994)TheatreinAncientGreekSociety,London:Routledge.GREEN,K.andLEBIHAN,J.(1996)CriticalTheoryandPractice,London:Routledge. BIBLIOGRAPHY167HALL,C.(1988)‘AddressingRacismthroughDrama’,2D,vol.7,no.2.HANNA,J.L.(1979)ToDanceisHuman:ATheoryofNon-verbalCommunication,UniversityofTexasPress.HARDY,B.(1977)‘TowardsaPoeticsofFiction’,inTheCoolWeb,MEEK,M.etal.(ed),London:BodleyHead.HASTE,H.(1987)‘GrowingintoRules’,inMakingSense,BRUNER,J.andHASTE,H.(ed),London:Methuen.HEATHCOTE,D.(1984)CollectedWritingsonEducationandDrama,JOHNSON,L.andO’NEILL,C.(ed),Cheltenham,UK:Hutchinson.HEATHCOTE,D.andBOLTON,G.(1995)DramaforLearning:DorothyHeathcote’sMantleoftheExpertApproachtoEducation,Portsmouth,NH:Heinemann.HEKMAN,S.J.(1995)MoralVoices,MoralSelves:CarolGilliganandFeministMoralTheory,Cambridge:Polity.HERSH,A.(1992)‘HowSweettheKill:OrgiasticFemaleViolenceinContemporaryRevisionsofEuripides’“‘TheBacchae’”,ModernDrama,vol.35.HIGHET,G.(1957)TheClassicalTradition;GreekandRomanInfluencesontheWesternWorld,Oxford:ClarendonPress.HIGHWATER,J.(1982)ThePrimalMind,NewYork:HarperandRow.HOFFMAN,M.L.(1976)‘Empathy,RoleTaking,GuiltandDevelopmentofAltruisticMotives’,MoralDevelopmentandBehaviour,LINKNONA,T.(ed),NewYork:Holt,RhinehartandWinston.HOLQUIST,M.(1990)Dialogism:BakhtinandhisWorld,London:Routledge.HORNBROOK,D.(1989)EducationandDramaticArt,London:Blackwell.HORNBROOK,D.(1995)‘MrGargery’sChallenge:ReflectionsonNADIEJournalInternationalResearchIssue’,NADIEJournal,vol.19,no.1.HOYLES,M.(1989)ThePoliticsofChildhood,London:JourneymanPress.INGLIS,F.(1986)‘PopularCultureandtheMeaningofFeeling’,DutchQuarterlyReviewofAnglo-AmericanLetters,vol.16.INGLIS,F.(1993)CulturalStudies,Oxford,UK:BasilBlackwell.JOYCE,K.(1987)‘ConfrontingSexismthroughDrama’,2D,vol.6,no.2.KELLY,A.(1992)‘RevealingBakhtin’,NewYorkReviewofBooks,24September.KENNY,R.,GROTELUESCHEN,A.(1984)‘MakingtheCaseforCaseStudy’,JournalofCurriculumStudies,vol.16,no.1.KEYSSAR,H.(1991)‘DramaandtheDialogicImagination’,ModernDrama,vol.34,p.95.KIRK,G.S.(1970)Myth:ItsMeaningandFunction,Cambridge,UK:CambridgeUniversityPress.KIRK,G.S.(1974)TheNatureoftheGreekMyths,London:Penguin.KITTO,H.(1973)GreekTragedy,London:Routledge.KOHLBERG,L.(1971)‘StagesofMoralDevelopmentasaBasisforMoralEducation’,MoralEducation:InterdisciplinaryApproaches,BECK,etal.(ed),Univ.ofTorontoPress.KOHLBERG,L.(1981)‘MoralDevelopmentandtheTheoryofTragedy’,EssaysinMoralDevelopment,VolI:ThePhilosophyofMoralDevelopment,SanFrancisco:HarperandRow.LANGER,S.(1953)FeelingandForm,NewYork:CharlesScribner’sSons.LANGFORD,G.(1985)EducationPersonsandSociety:APhilosophicalEnquiry,Basingstoke:MacMillan.LAWRENCE,C.(1981)‘TeacherandRole:ADramaTeachingPartnership’,2D,vol.1,no.2.LAWRENCE,C.(ed)(1993)VoicesforChange,Newcastle-upon-Tyne:NationalDramaPublications.LIPMAN,M.etal.(1980)PhilosophyintheClassroom,Philadelphia:TempleUniversityPress. 168DRAMA,NARRATIVEANDMORALEDUCATIONLIPMAN,M.(1988)PhilosophyGoestoSchool,Philadelphia:TempleUniversityPress.LITTLE,A.(1967)MythandSocietyinAtticDrama,NewYork:Octagon.LOEVINGER,J.(1976)EgoDevelopment,SanFrancisco:Jossey-Bass.LUCAKS,G.(1968)TheHistoricalNovel,London:MerlinPress.LURIE,A.(1990)Don’tTelltheGrown-ups,London:Bloomsbury.MACINTYRE,A.(1967)AShortHistoryofEthics,London:Routledge,KeganandPaul.MACINTYRE,A.(1981)AfterVirtue,London:Duckworth.MEADOWS,S.(1986)UnderstandingChildDevelopment,London:Routledge.MELLER,H.etal.(1984)ChangingStories,London:NATEPublications.MORGAN,N.andSAXTON,J.(1987)TeachingDrama,London:Hutchinson.MORSON,G.andEMERSON,C.(1990)MikhailBakhtin:CreationofaProsaics,California:StanfordUniversityPress.MURDOCH,I.(1970)TheSovereigntyofGoodoverOtherConcepts,London:RoutledgeandKeganPaul.MURRIS,K.(1992)TeachingPhilosophywithPictureBooks,London:Infonet.MUSSER,L.andFREEMAN,E.(1989)‘TeachYoungStudentsaboutNativeAmer-icans:UseMyths,LegendsandFolktales’,TheSocialStudies,Jan/Feb.NARAYAN,K.(1991)‘AccordingtoTheirFeelings’,StoriesLivesTell,NODDINGS,N.andWITHERALL,C.(eds),ColumbiaUniversity,NewYork:Teacher’sCollegePress.NEELANDS,J.(1984)MakingSenseofDrama,Oxford:Heinemann.NEELANDS,J.(1992)LearningThroughImaginedExperience,London:HodderandStoughton.NEELANDS,J.(1994)‘TheatrewithoutWalls’,Drama,vol.2,no.2.NEELANDS,J.andGOODE,T.(1995)‘PlayingontheMarginsofMeaning:theRitualAestheticinCommunityPerformance’,Drama,vol.3,no.2.NICHOLSON,H.(1993)‘PostmodernismandEducationalDrama’,Drama,vol.2,no.1.NICHOLSON,H.(1995)‘PerformativeActs:Drama,EducationandGender’,NADIEJournal,vol.19,no.1.NODDINGS,N.(1984)Caring:AFeminineApproachtoEthicsandMoralEducation,BerkeleyandLosAngeles:UniversityofCaliforniaPress.NODDINGS,N.andWITHERELL,C.(1991)StoriesLivesTell,ColumbiaUniversity,NewYork:Teachers’CollegePress.NORMAN,R.(1983)MoralPhilosophies:AnIntroductiontoEthics,Oxford:ClarendonPress.NOWOTTNY,W.(1962)TheLanguagePoetsUse,London:Athlone.NUSSBAUM,M.(1986)TheFragilityofGoodness,NewYork:CambridgeUniversityPress.OAKESHOTT,M.(1962)‘PoetryandtheConversationofMankind’,RationalisminPoliticsandOtherEssays,London:Methuen.ODDIE,D.(1994)‘TheActorandtheTeacher’,Drama,vol.2,no.3.O’HARA,M.(1996)‘TheDramaofDramainEducation:QuestionsandIssues’,DramaandTheatreinEducation:ContemporaryResearch,SOMERS,J.(ed),NorthYork,Ontario:CaptusPress.O’LEARY,J.(1996)‘ManWhoWantsSchoolstoFocusonRightandWrong’,TheTimes,6July.OLIVER,D.W.andBANE,M.J.(1971)‘MoralEducation:IsReasoningEnough?’,MoralEducation:InterdisciplinaryApproaches,BECK,C.M.,CRITTENDEN,B.S.andSULLIVAN,E.V.(eds),NewYork:NewmanPress.O’NEILL,C.etal.(1976)DramaGuidelines,London:HeinemanninassociationwithLondonDrama.O’NEILL,C.andLAMBERT,A.(1982)DramaStructures,London:Hutchinson.O’NEILL,C.(1994)‘HereComesEverybody:AspectsofRoleinProcessDrama’,NADIEJournal,vol.18,no.2. BIBLIOGRAPHY169O’NEILL,C.(1995)DramaWorlds:AFrameworkforProcessDrama,PortsmouthNH:Heinemann.OPIE,I.(1995)‘FearandTensioninChildren’sGames’,DramatherapywithChildrenandAdolescents,JENNINGS,S.(ed),London:Routledge.OPIE,I.andOPIE,P.(1959)TheLanguageandLoreofSchoolchildren,London:OxfordUniversityPress.O’TOOLE,J.(1992)TheProcessofDrama,London:Routledge.O’TOOLE,J.(1995)‘TheRudeCharmsofDrama’,SelectedReadingsinDramaandTheatreEducation,NADIEResearchMonograph,no.3,Brisbane,Australia:NADIEPublications.PECHEY,G.(1989)‘OnthebordersofBakhtin:Dialogisation,decolonisation’,BakhtinandCulturalTheory,HIRSCHKOP,K.andSHEPHERD,D.(eds),ManchesterUniversityPress.PEGG,B.(1981)RitesandRiots:FolkCulturesofBritainandEurope,Dorset,UK:BlandfordPress.PHILIP,N.(1992)ThePenguinBookofEnglishFolktales,London.PIAGET,J.(1932)TheMoralJudgmentoftheChild,London:Routledge,KeganandPaul.PRATT,A.(1982)ArchetypalPatternsinWomen’sFiction,Brighton,UK:Har-vesterPress.PRING,R.(1984)Personal,SocialandMoralEducation,London:HodderandStoughton.PROPP,V.(1968)MorphologyoftheFolktale,TexasPress.PROPP,V.(1984)TheoryandHistoryofFolklore,ManchesterUniversityPress.RABEY,D.I.(1990)‘DefiningDifference:TimberlakeWertenbaker’sDramaofLanguage,DispossessionandDiscovery’,ModernDrama,vol.33.RAWLS,J.(1977)ATheoryofJustice,NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress.READMAN,G.andLAMONT,G.(1994)DramainthePrimaryClassroom,London:BBCPublications.REIM,R.(1994)GreekTragicTheatre,London:Routledge.ROBINSON,K.(1980)‘Drama,TheatreandSocialReality’,ExploringTheatreandEducation,ROBINSON,K.(ed),Heinemann,London.ROBINSON,K.(1981)‘ARe-evaluationoftherolesandfunctionsofdramainsecondaryeducationwithreferencetoasurveyofcurriculardramain259secondaryschools’,Ph.Dthesis,UniversityofLondon.ROGERS,R.(1978)Metaphor:APsychoanalyticView,BerkeleyandLosAngeles:UniversityofCaliforniaPress.ROWE,D.andNEWTON,J.(eds)(1994)You,Me,Us:SocialandMoralResponsibilityforPrimarySchools,London:CitizenshipFoundation.SCHECHNER,R.(1993)TheFutureofRitual,London:Routledge.SCHEFFLER,I.(1985)OfHumanPotential,London:RoutledgeandKeganPaul.SCHEFFLER,I.(1991)InPraiseoftheCognitiveEmotions,London:Routledge.SCHEFFLER,S.(1996)‘AgainsttheSystem’,TheTimesLiterarySupplement,no.4846,Feb.16th.SCHÖN,D.(1987)EducatingtheReflectivePractitioner,NewYork:Jossey-Bass.SCIEZSKA,J.andJOHNSON,S.(1991)TheFrogPrince(continued),NewYork:Viking.SCIEZSKA,J.andSMITH,L.(1992)TheStinkyCheeseManandotherFairlyStupidTales,NewYork:Viking.SELMAN,R.L.(1976)‘Socialcognitiveunderstanding:Aguidetoeducationandclinicalpractice’,MoralDevelopmentandBehaviour,LIKONA,T.(ed),NewYork:Holt,RinehartandWinston.SEYMOURHOUSE,K.(1965)Cooper’sAmericans,OhioStateUniversityPress.SLADE,P.(1954)ChildDrama,UniversityofLondonPress.SLADE,P.(1993)‘Avoidingdelinquency:Theartsandmoraleducation’,ArtsEducation,June.SLOTKIN,R.(1992)‘MythandtheProductionofHistory’,NewEssayson‘TheLastoftheMohicans’,PECK,B.(ed),NewYork:CambridgeUniversityPress.SOMERS,J.(1996)‘TheNatureofLearninginDramainEducation’,DramaandTheatreinEducation:ContemporaryResearch,NorthYork,Ontario:CaptusPress. 170DRAMA,NARRATIVEANDMORALEDUCATIONSPENCER,P.(1985)SocietyandtheDance,Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.STENHOUSE,L.(1975)AnIntroductiontoCurriculumResearchandDevelopment,London:Heinemann.SULLIVAN,E.(1985)‘Kohlberg’sStageTheoryasaProgressiveEducationalFormforValueDevelopment’,LawrenceKohlberg:ConsensusandControversy,Philadelphia:FalmerPress.TAPPAN,M.(1991a)‘Narrative,AuthorshipandtheDevelopmentofMoralAuthority’,NarrativeandStorytelling:ImplicationsforUnderstandingMoralDevelopment,SanFrancisco:Jossey-Bass.TAPPAN,M.(1991b)‘Narrative,LanguageandMoralExperience’,TheJournalofMoralEducation,vol.20,no.3.TAPLIN,O.(1985)GreekTragedyinPerformance,London:Routledge.TARLINGTON,C.andVERRIOUR,P.(1991)RoleDrama,Ontario:Pembroke.TATAR,M.(1992)OffwithTheirHeads!FairyTalesandtheCultureofChildhood,NewJersey:PrincetonUniversityPress.TAYLOR,C.(1989)SourcesoftheSelf:TheMakingoftheModernIdentity,Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.TAYLOR,P.(1995)Pre-TextandStorydrama:TheArtistryofCecilyO’NeillandDavidBooth,Brisbane,Australia:NADIEResearchMonographSeriesno.1.TAYLOR,P.(1996)‘Rebellion,ReflectiveTurningandArtsEducationResearch’,and‘DoingReflectivePractitionerResearchinArtsEducation’,ResearchingDramaandArtsEducation,TAYLOR,P.(ed),London:FalmerPress.THOMPSON,S.(1977)TheFolktale,BerkeleyandLosAngeles:UniversityofCaliforniaPress.THOMSON,A.(1996)‘Careyurgesparentsandteacherstosetanethicalexampleforall’,TheTimes,6July.TODOROV,T.(1984)MikhailBakhtin:TheDialogicalPrinciple,ManchesterUniversityPress.TOOKER,E.(ed)(1979)NativeNorthAmericanSpiritualityoftheEasternWoodlands,NewYork:PaulistPress.TROYNA,B.(1994)‘Reforms,ResearchandBeingReflexiveaboutBeingReflective’,unpublishedpaper.TURNER,G.(1988)FilmasSocialPractice,London:Routledge.UNITEDSOCIETYFORTHEPROPAGATIONOFTHEGOSPEL(1984)Testimony,ChiefSeattle.WAGNER,B.J.(1979)DorothyHeathcote:DramaasaLearningMedium,London:Hutchinson.WALVIN,J.(1982)AChild’sWorld:ASocialHistoryofEnglishChildhood,1800–1914,London:Penguin.WASHBURN,W.E.(1964)TheIndianandtheWhiteMan,NewYork:RandomHouse.WASHBURN,W.E.(1973)TheAmericanIndianandtheUnitedStates:ADocumentaryHistory(VolumeIV),NewYork:RandomHouse.WHITE,H.(1981)‘TheValueofNarrativityintheRepresentationofReality’,OnNarrative,MITCHELL,W.J.T.(ed),UniversityofChicagoPress.WILLETT,J.(1974)BrechtonTheatre,London:Methuen.WILLIAMS,B.(1985)EthicsandtheLimitsofPhilosophy,London:Fontana/Collins.WILLIAMS,R.(1968)DramafromIbsentoBrecht,Harmondsworth:Penguin.WILLIAMS,R.(1975)DramainaDramatizedSociety,Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.WINSTON,J.(1994)‘RevisingtheFairyTalethroughMagic:AntoniaBarber’sTheEnchanter’sDaughter’,Children’sLiteratureinEducation,vol.25,no.2.WINSTON,J.(1995)‘CarefultheTaleYouTell:FairyTales,DramaandMoralEducation’,ChildrenandSociety,vol.9,no.4.WITHERELL,C.,PopE-EDWARDs(1991)‘Moralversussocial-conventionalreasoning:anarrativeandculturalcritique’,TheJournalofMoralEducation,vol.20,no.3. BIBLIOGRAPHY171WOLFE,D.T.(1978)‘Educationaldramaandmoraldevelopment’,inBAIRDSHUMAN(ed.)EducationalDramaforToday’sSchools,Metuchen,NJ:ScarecrowPress.WOOLLAND,B.(1993)TheTeachingofDramainthePrimarySchool,London:Longman.WRIGHT,N.(1980)‘FromtheUniversaltotheParticular’,ExploringTheatreinEducation,ROBINSON,K.(ed),London:Heinemann.ZIPES,J.(1979)BreakingtheMagicSpell,London:Heinemann.ZIPES,J.(1983)FairyTalesandtheArtofSubversion,London:Heinemann.ZIPES,J.(ed.)(1986)Don’tBetonthePrinceAldershot:Gower.ZIPES,J.(ed.)(1987)VictorianFairyTales,London:Methuen.ZIPES,J.(1993)TheTrialsandTribulationsofLittleRedRidingHood,London:Routledge.ZIPES,J.(1994)FairyTaleasMyth,MythasFairyTale,Lexington:UniversityPressofKentucky.ZIPES,J.(1996)CreativeStorytelling:BuildingCommunity,ChangingLives,London:Routledge. 172 Appendix1ThefollowingisextractedfromtranscriptsofthediscussiontheteacherhadwiththeclassinbetweenthesecondandthirdsessionoftheJackandtheBeanstalkdrama.Editorialcutsareshownbydottedlines.T:YouwereallpretendingtobechildrenofthevillagewhowerefriendswithJack.YouallwentupthebeanstalktogetJackdown,whichwasabitofariskybusiness,wasn’tit?Chn:Yeah!!T:Abig,highbeanstalkwhichhadaGiantatthetop.Now,whydidyouagree?Jack’smotheraskedyoutogoandbringhimback.Whydidyouagreetodothatforher?Karen.Ch:Becausehe’sourfriend.T:BecauseJack’syourfriend.OK.WhyareyoufriendswithJack,then?Whatsortofthingsdoweknowabouthimthatmakeshimoneofourfriends?Ch:He’snicetomeandheletsmeplayinhisgardenandinhishouse.T:Right,IthinkitmightbehelpfulifwemakealistofthingsthatweknowaboutJack.Let’sthinkfirstofallaboutallthegoodthingsaboutJack.Keely?Ch:Heplays.T:Heplayswithyou.Ch:He’skind.T:He’skind.Ch:He’snice.T:He’snice.Ch:Heplayswithmeinmyhouse.Ch:Helooksafteryouwhenyou’vefallenover.Ch:He’srich.T:Yes,he’sgotalotofmoneynow,hasn’the?Ch:He’sbrave.T:Brave,becausehekeepsgoingbackupthatbeanstalk,doesn’the?…Somebodysaysthathe’s….Chn:STRONG 174APPENDIX1T:That’sright,hemustbeveryfit,mustn’the?Somemoregoodthingsabouthim.Richard?Ch:He’sfriendly.T:Friendly,right.Ch:Heplaysgoodgames.T:Heplaysgoodgames,doeshe,he’slotsoffuntobewith?Ch:Yeah.…T:OK,Let’sthinkaboutsomeofthethingsaboutJackthataren’tsogood.Christopher?Ch:Hebreakshispromises.T:Hebreakspromises,tohismotherparticularly.Ian?Ch:He’slazy.T:Heisaverylazyboy,isn’the?Cara?Ch:Hetellslies.T:Right.Hannah,whatdidyousay?Ch:Isaidhesteals.T:Hedoes,hestealsfromtheGiant,doesn’the?Ch:Coshetakesbackthingsthatdon’tbelongtohim.T:Yes?Ch:Hedoesn’t…sometimes…(toosofttohear)T:Hedoesn’ttellhismummywhereheisplaying,right?Ch:Heisn’thelpful.T:Heisn’thelpfulatall,ishe?Whenhismummyneedshimtodojobs.Ch:He’salwaysdaydreaming.T:He’dratherdaydream,wouldn’the?Ch:He’stiredandlazy.Ch:Heletshismumdoallthework.Ch:He’snaughty.…(Teacherstopsthetape.ShetoldmelaterthatonechildnowsuggestedthatJacksworeandthattherewassomedisputeoverthisandthatthechildfinallysaidthat‘bum’wasaswearword)T:Whenwestoppedaminuteago,someofyousaidthatJackwasnaughty.IwonderifyoucangivemeanyexamplesofwhyJack’snaughty?What’shedonethat’snaughty?Ch:Hetoldalie.T:WhatliehasJacktold?Thinkbacktothestory.ThinkaboutthingsthatJack’sdone.Whenhashetoldalietosomeone?Ch:TotheGiant’swife.T:HeliedtotheGiant’swife,didn’the.Whatdidhesay?Ch:Hewouldn’tcauseheranytrouble.T:Right.Hetoldherhewasonlycomingintohavealookround,thathewasn’tgoingtostealanything. 175Ch:Buthedid!T:Buthedid,right.…… 176 Appendix2TheStarPoemStarsparkleBlueskyStarsistersStarlightWaterliliesTouchgentlyCreamypetalsStarMaidenBluelakeNightlongThispoemwascreatedintheformofacalligram,afive-pointedstar.ThephraseswerealltakenfromthelasttwopagesofthebookTheStarMaiden.Itispossibletobeginthepoematanypointofthestar,sotheversionaboveisjustoneoftenpossiblereadings. 178 Appendix3Calligram1ofTheStarPoem 180DRAMA,NARRATIVEANDMORALEDUCATIONCalligram2ofTheStarPoem IndexAdelman,C.,79Bertolucci,38Aeschylus,33,67,68Best,D.,52Ahlberg,A.,102Bettelheim,B.,23–6,28–30,63,124,125alienation,28Bharucha,R.,152–70Allen,J.,63Blum,L,5Anouilh,J.,37Boal,A.,49–1,52,54,56–9,118anthropology,79Bolton,G.,63–6,65–9,68,97appropriateresponses,6Bond,E.,34,37archetypes,93–10,124,148Booth,D.,64,68Aristotle,48–50,52–6,57–59TheBrahmin,theThiefandtheOgre,81–5,86–endings,10322,159ethicalrules,115Brecht,B.,45,48–52,56–8,123–9meandoctrine,124,125Brook,P.,34,152rationality,78brotherhoodcode,93–10,148tradition,7–13BrothersGrimm,20virtues,100–16Bruchac,B.,18Artaud,44Bruner,J.,6–7,14,23,26–29,33,35associativeclusters,87Atwood,M.,128,152,153Caduto,M.,18audiorecordings,83Calvinism,111Austen,J.,15Campbell,J.,19–1,25–8,67autonomy,4careethic,4–7,18,122–8,125Averill,J.,101carnival,107,112–9,118,121,123–42Axtell,J.,137Carr,D.,101Carr,W.,78Bakhtin,M.,15–7,70,103,112,121,123Carroll,J.,79Bane,M.J.,63cartoons,122Barthes,R.,27,29,47casestudies,78–3,138,140Bauer,63categoricalimperative,4Beckerman,B.,56–9,97,159catharsis,49–6,58Benhabib,4Charney,M.,113,117,121Benjamin,W.,18,20,24–6,28Chaucer,G.,111Bennett,W.,156Chesterton,G.K.,21Bergman,I.,38ChiefSeattle,128,130,135Bernstein,M.A.,75,122Chippewanation,134,136,137181 182DRAMA,NARRATIVEANDMORALEDUCATIONChristianity,132,135–4,143,149,153doctrineofthemean,124,135Churchill,C.,37,43,98,103documentation,83CitizenshipFoundation,154,158Donaldson,M.,4classicalcomedy,117–3Dostoevsky,F.,15classroom,drama,73–85doubleconsciousness,160cognitivedevelopmentaltheory,3–4dramaColby,R.,63–7,81,91,96–13,103classroom,73–85community,26–8,34,156–5dialogue,98–15compassion,5,10,70,98,100,113,123education,100–17conductmorality,14JackandtheBeanstalk,115–41Congreve,W.,113moraleducation,63–73contemporarydrama,35–8moralengagement,48–60contemporarytheatre,63moralreflection,143–64contextualissues,4–4,12,35,85,92myth,26–37dreams,144pedagogy,92–20fairytales,20,112dramaticart,65virtues,120drawings,83conventionalstage,3dreams,144Cook,C.,63Dryden,J.,132Cooper,J.F.,133,135,137Duffy,M.,43Coppola,F.F.,102,103Copway,G.,129,134–4,143,153economics,138,140,145–3,148,152costumes,116,119,148Edens,C.,112Courtney,R.,63Edgar,D.,96Cox,T.,63Edmiston,B.,69–4,73,76Crichton,M.,44education,63–73,92–20,100–17Crossley-Holland,K.,114–31,122egointegrity,4Cruikshank,G.,23,111Eisner,E.,77,79crystallization,83,84Eliade,M.,18–19,67Cullingford,C.,93elitism,49culturalrepresentation,148–9Emerson,C.,126culturalvalues,128–71emotions,48–60,101,122,124curriculum,57–9,68,76,80,82–7,115emotivism,8empathy,5,100Dahl,R.,17endings,103–20,117dance,139,141–9,151Enlightenment,5,7–8,51,133dataanalysis,83–8,91,117,140environment,131,138datagathering,82–7environmentalism,18Davie,H.K.,129Erikson,E.,4–4Derrida,J.,4Esbensen,B.J.,128–52,138,148,152–70developmentalstages,155essentialism,54–6,66dialecticperformance,56–8Esslin,M.,99dialogism,15–7ethicofcare,4–7,18,122–8,125dialogue,98–15ethicalexploration,115–41Dickens,C.,111,135ethicalsystems,10–2Dickinson,H.,36ethicsseemoralityDisney,W.,39ethnography,78–2,82,84 INDEX183Euripides,33,38,40–5,67Goode,T.,141evaluationoflessons,83Greekdrama,31–6,67evangelism,137Green,J.R.,33–5evidencegathering,82–7Grotelueschen,A.,79Guba,75fairytales,14,20–6,28–31,58,88guidelines,115carnival,125–2retellings,111–8Hardy,B.,6feedback,84Haste,H.,115feminismHeathcote,D.,63,65–68,96–11,148contemporarytheatre,63heroism,19,28,57,113essentialism,54Hersh,A.,43ethicofcare,125heteronomy,4fairytales,22–4Highet,G.,36justice,5,6Holquist,M.,123language,4–4HomeOffice,154Phaedrasyndrome,39,43Homer,11,32playwriting,37Hoop,J.H.vander,146politics,98Hornbrook,D.,53–5,65–9,68,71socialroles,11–3House,S.,133feudalism,113Hume,D.,51fieldworkseecasestudiesfindings,84–9iconicfigures,122Finlay-Johnson,H.,63,63iconicperformance,56–8Flanagan,O.,5identity,26–9,147Fo,D.,56,113,118,124imagery,96–12,102–18,129,135,137,143–folk-lore,17–20,107–6,113–9,118,12464forumtheatre,50,89improvisation,117,121Foucault,M.,4,22,79in-servicetraining,117Freeman,E.,18incest,38,40,41,42Freud,S,4,19–1,23–5,26,124,145Inglis,F.,12,51,153Froebel,63interdependence,18Frye,N.,87,117,125interpretivedata,83Gardner,H.,98JackandtheBeanstalk,81,107–43,159Geertz,C.,79,84Jackson,K.,5Gérard,A.S.,38–41Jacobs,J.,107,110,112,114–30Gergen,K.J.,101,105Jenkins,D.,79Gilligan,C.,4–7,10–3,18,55,63Johnson,S.,23ethicofcare,123Jonson,B.,113,117narrative,15journal-keeping,83–8responsibility,122judgement,11–3Girard,R.,41Jung,C.G.,19,20Giraudoux,J.,37justice,3–4,5–6,49GloriousRevolution,111Goldberg,S.,14,15,57Kant,L,4,5,7–11,51goodpractice,77,140Kelly,A.,15 184DRAMA,NARRATIVEANDMORALEDUCATIONKenny,R.,79moralpanics,93Keyssar,H.,46moralityKirk,G.S.,18–20,23,36ambiguity,102–18knowledgemodes,6–7argument,98–15Kohlberg,L.,3–6,10–2,24,51cognitivedevelopmentaltheory,3–4cognition,99contemporary,35–8developmentalstages,64,91,100,159development,91influence,154–3education,63–73,92–20,100–17engagement,48–60language,10,31,39,70–4,97–12,121exploration,107–43carnival,122force,96–12,102–18nativeAmericans,135interpretation,148–9rules,125involvement,140–9TheStarMaiden,129–6meanings,14–25leadership,146myth,26–37learningsupport,89narrative,3–13lessons,82–7,85,89–4,126,139–6Phaedrasyndrome,37Levi-Strauss,C.,19,80relection,143–64life-centredmorality,14–6resonance,103–20Lincoln,75system,10–2Lipman,M.,101–17,154values,128–71literature,12–4,111–30,123Morson,G.,126narratives,14–25multiculturalism,82noblesavagism,133–50Murdoch,I.,16,144Little,A.,31Murris,K.,154,155Loevinger,J.,4Musser,L.,18Lurie,A.,20myth,26,31–8Lyotard,4myths,14–25,138,143,151–9MacDonald,111narrativeMacIntyre,A.,7–13,15,17,20,24–6,27–9definitions,6–7community,156literary,14–25developmentalstages,69,159morallife,3–13endings,103–19moraltheory,4–5Greekdrama,35NationalCurriculum,82moraltransition,32–5NativeAmericans,127–70,128–70socialroles,119,146Neelands,J,64,68,141Malle,L.,38Nicholson,H.,66,68,71Maracle,L.,128noblesavagism,132–51,138Marxism,58,65–9,100Noddings,N.,55,97–12meanings,14–25,66,148,151Nussbaum,M.,11,52–6,58,151–9media,92–7Meredith,117Oakeshott,M.,10methodology,80–9O’Hara,M.,63Miraclee,152Ojibwaynation,127–70modernism,3,4Oliver,D.W.,63Molière,113,120O’Neill,C.,36,58,64,68,93–8,121 INDEX185dreams,144Puritans,111rituals,141Opie,I.,107,125questing,19,107–30Opie,P.,107O’Toole,J.,117,125–2Rabelais,F.,112–8Rabey,D.I.,39parodies,112–8Racine,J.B.,38particularities,5–7,12,14,27,65Rawls,J.,3Pearce,133–50reason,48–60Pechey,G.,123reflectivepractice,83,160pedagogy,92–20Reid,L.A.,146performanceculture,34Reim,R.,34performancetypes,56relationships,5–6,10,41Perrault,C.,20,21relativism,32PhaedraSyndrome,36,38–47,48,54religion,137,151philanthropy,137repartee,121Philip,N.,107responsibility,122,125philosophy,14,34,39,46,63revisionism,21–4,30,36puritanism,111Rich,A.,39–1teaching,101Richards,G.,56phronesis,160Ricoeur,P.,14Piaget,J.,3–4,4risks,107–43PlainsIndians,18Ritchie,A.I.,111Plato,48,52ritualenrolment,140–9playfulness,115–41,120Robinson,K.,53–6,63pluralism,12,160romanticism,111,133,137poetry,140,141,150Roth,G.,141Polanski,R.,94Rousseau,J-J.,63,132–9politics,34–6,43–5,53–5,65,67,98rules,115,119,125,146giants,124nativeAmericans,134–1,137Saenger,B.,154values,103Saki,16–8,87positivism,76,77,83Sartre,J-P.,37post-conventionalstage,3,91Schechner,R.,141post-structuralism,4,12,23Scheffler,I.,51,160postmodernism,4–5,7,12,105,158Schön,D.,77–1discourse,16schools,81–5,85,119,157relationships,10Sciezska,J.,23Pound,E.,143selectionprocess,80–5pre-conventionalstage,3self-criticism,27pre-Raphaelites,112Selman,R.L.,4presentationoffindings,84–9Sendak,M.,154primitivism,65,66–67Seneca,38processdrama,64,66,69,88,126,141sensitivity,5,10,70processmodel,76–77sequentiality,14Propp,V.,18,94,109sexuality,38–47,136psychology,14,65,110,112,124,125Shakespeare,W.,56–8,111,141 186DRAMA,NARRATIVEANDMORALEDUCATIONSherwood,111economics,145Slade,P.,63–6giants,125–1Slotkin,R.,31,133imagery,146socialroles,8,9–3,32,119roles,122,126giants,125textualanalysis,83,84leadership,146Thomas,V.,86,88socialization,22,24Thompson,S.,18Somers,J.,73–77Thucydides,11,32sophists,32Tooker,E.,131Sophocles,11,46,67traditionalism,21,23–6specialneeds,100triangulation,83Spenser,E.,111Troyna,B.,75Stabler,T.,91Turner,G.,94stagesofmoraldevelopment,91,100,155TheStarandtheLily,134–4universalethicalprinciples,3TheStarMaiden,81,83–7,128–71Ushenko,144statusgames,121utilitarianism,111Stenhouse,L.,76,157utopianism,103–19stewardship,131,138story-telling,9–4,20values,87–2,91–6,125,126,128–71storytelling,33–5carnival,126subjunctivity,14,15Christianity,138subversion,120inescapability,160Sullivan,E.,157nativeAmericans,151symbolism,18,19–1,63,87–2noblesavagism,134Christianity,153schools,157dreams,144spiritual,151–9fairytales,22,24–6Vega,L.de,38giants,124,125–1videorecordings,83,84,117,125leadership,146violence,41,43–5,46,88–3,92–7,98NativeAmericans,128,138cartoons,122objects,102–18giants,124,125Phaedrasyndrome,39symbolism,102,147power,149–7victims,114ritual,140,142–9virtues,100–17,117,119–5,125socialcodes,145caring,123violence,147nature,158systemofethics,10–2visualsignals,95,97–12Tabart,B.,107,110–30,119–5,123Wagner,B.J.,68,96taboos,38,112–8,152Walker,L.J.,136,137Tatar,M.,22–4,25,88Warnock,M.,23Taylor,64,75,83Way,B.,63teachers,82–8,89,102,116–2,119,121Wertenbaker,T.,37,38–49,63ambiguity,125Williams,B.,10–2,92,156–5community,156–5Williams,R.,30,33,35–7,63,67,143developmentalstages,155Wolfe,D.T.,63 INDEX187Wright,N.,65–67writing,83Yggdrasil,107Zipes,J.,20–4,25,29–2,37,154endings,104fairytales,58,111–7giants,124Greekdrama,33–5Zola,E.,36