About Daniel J. Wiener // History of RfG // About Dramatic Enactment // Teaching Philosophy // FAQ
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) about RfG Enactments
Summary of Questions
- What is the difference between a RfG exercise and a RfG game?
- For which purposes are RfG enactments conducted in psychotherapy?
- How do you get clients to try RfG enactments?
- As a clinician, what do you look for when observing clients enacting RfG games and exercises?
- What is typically done by clinicians once the enactment of a RfG game or exercise is underway?
- What personal preparation is needed for clinicians to use RfG enactments successfully?
Q-1: What is the difference between a RfG exercise and a RfG game?
A: RfG exercises are enactments in which players perform tasks in character
as themselves. The tasks of exercises are unusual relative to those of
everyday life. RfG games, by contrast, are enactments during which players
assume character other than their everyday selves. The tasks of games
typically require players to react to both realistic and fantastic situations
in-role as the characters they have assumed. (For a partial listing of
RfG games and exercises, see Rehearsals for Growth, Appendix A, pp. 249-252).
[to top
of page]
Q-2. For which purposes are RfG enactments conducted in psychotherapy?
A: RfG enactments are mainly applied within conjoint therapies, being
used both as assessment tools and as psychotherapy interventions. Assessment
aims to understand both intra- and interpersonal relationship functioning
while intervention aims to teach skills useful in interpersonal functioning.
How clients improvise together with others who are relative strangers
needs to be distinguished from how they improvise together with others
with whom they have significant prior relationship histories (family members,
friends, co-workers, etc). (For a more detailed discussion of RfG assessment,
see Rehearsals for Growth, pp. 152-154 for examples of RfG used for intervention,
see case vignettes throughout Rehearsals for Growth and in other chapters
and articles cited in the Publications link).
[to top
of page]
Q-3: How do you get clients to try RfG enactments?
A: Many clinicians are concerned that RfG enactments will be perceived
by clients as too weird, demanding, revealing, or inappropriate by their
clients, so they refrain from attempting to offer them. Probably the single
most important prerequisite for their successful use is the willingness
of the clinician to experiment playfully in the moment. Another important
factor is client receptivity, as assessed by signs of over-familiarity
or boredom with conventional in-session topics, dynamics and methods.
(For a fuller discussion of the tactics of inducting clients into RfG
enactment, see Rehearsals for Growth, pp. 146 -150).
[to top
of page]
Q-4: As a clinician, what do you look for when observing clients enacting RfG games and exercises?
A: Typically, the clinician has at least one specific purpose for which
the specific RfG enactment was offered and which guides the observations
made. Beyond that, there are seven signs of good or deficient improvising
which serve as a useful starting point for interpreting client performances
in relationships. Additionally, deficient improvising appears to correspond
with deficiencies in life role functions. (For a fuller discussion of
the seven signs of good or deficient improvising, see Rehearsals for Growth,
pp. -xix-xx and 154-156; for examples of the correspondence between deficiencies
in both improvising and life role functions, See Wiener, 1999 article,
"Assessing interpersonal functioning using theater improvisation,"
cited in the Publications link).
[to top
of page]
Q-5: What is typically done by clinicians once the enactment of a RfG game or exercise is underway?
A: To begin with, clinicians need to monitor the enactment and intervene
to halt or correct it if it appears that anything is fundamentally incorrect
in the way it is proceeding. The clinician should always provide support
and encouragement for anything the clients do, short of injuring others
or unambiguously sabotaging the enactment, and take responsibility for
not having given clear enough or sufficiently complete instructions if
things go wrong. Next, look for a way to bring the enactment to an end
before it loses energy or becomes repetitious (err on the side of ending
'sooner'). Then, praise the client players for their bravery and effort
and debrief them by returning them to their offstage seats and personalities.
Finally, invite client players to share their experiences of the enactment
and integrate these experiences into the verbal therapy. (For a fuller
discussion of how to monitor, debrief, and integrate the experiences of
clients in RfG enactment, see Rehearsals for Growth, pp. 150-152).
[to top
of page]
Q-6: What personal preparation is needed for clinicians to use RfG enactments successfully?
A: Clinicians need not only the training and practice in doing RfG enactments
themselves but a willingness to enter into the adventure of play and pretense.
Even when the clinician remains offstage, s/he needs to be ready, willing
and able to participate, which clients often sense even when not tested
or mentioned. Moreover, clinicians need to remain flexible and open should
clients depart from expected performances during enactments so as to capitalize
on using whatever happens (which is what characterizes improvisation).
(For a fuller discussion of Clinicians' preparation for RfG enactment,
see Rehearsals for Growth, pp. 224-228).
[to top
of page]