An Interrupted discussion with Bill Roper The Journal for Drama in Education Vol. 36, Is. 2. (3).pdf

Short article describing the potential of Lacanian theory to create a framework for work in educational drama. It arose from unpublished discussions between educator and drama professor David Davies, social psychology professor Bill Roper and associate professor of drama, Konstantinos Amoiropoulos.The central idea of Lacanian theory, which should concern drama, is that it tends not to trust the imaginary order of communication as a vehicle for enhancing changes and transformations in the individual.The imaginary in Lacanian theory is deeply connected to the ego and is one of the three "classes"—along with the "symbolic" and the "real"—that construct human subjectivity. The Lacanian imaginary gives priority to the visual and could be defined as the set of idealized images with which people consciously identify and which, through such identifications, form a seemingly stable, articulated and coherent self.If we aim for transformation and change through drama, then we cannot base our dramatic practice on the "order" of the imaginary. Recourse to the imaginary order creates an insurmountable obstacle because the goal of ego speech is a constant implicit demand for recognition and consequent preservation of predetermined meanings and understandings rather than acceptance of the destabilizing factor of change.In order to create the possibility of some change for the participants in the drama, we must first consider another class of the psychic economy of the subject, that of the symbolic, the second of the Lacanian triad of classes, which affects the structure of the individual. The symbolic could be defined as the sum of signified and linguistic expressions in a given language and in a given cultural environment, similar to the accumulated roles, rules, and unwritten obligations that define a given social situation.If Lacan's scheme is correct, then these ideas should significantly influence how we understand the constitution of the subject and, therefore, should require a different way of approaching the possibility of change through drama. What lies at the heart of the Lacanian view is the symbolic, in which priority should be given to the organization and implementation of dramatic events in the classroom.However, further questions arise at this point, which require more research and exploration: should the imaginary, of both teachers and participants, be completely excluded from the process?The signifiers for Lacanian theory have no meaning in themselves. They are not "physically" associated with a particular signifier. Consequently, their socially constructed "meaning" should not be taken for granted.The most crucial issue is not to conceal the constructed nature of signifiers, the fact of their arbitrariness. Instead, they need to be openly exposed to different or altered combinations, through which the seemingly predetermined "meaning" attributed to them socially can be challenged and thus transformed. In other words, we must keep in mind that the Great Other (as part of the symbolic) lacks wholeness, which we are not used to attributing to it by.This seems to be the ground for applying Lacanian theory to theatrical practice: to pay more attention to the signifiers.