Psychodrama and sociodrama; psychodramatic roles and social roles. What is the difference?
What is not the difference: Psyche is “inner” and social is “outer”.
Psychodrama is about the social and cultural atom. Is there a psychological atom? I don’t think so.
I have a story that the might be a clue about when the psyche is at work. This happens often. Recently I co-led a group. We had little idea who would be there. We spent an hour or two warming up to the group We made a good connection with each other. We enjoyed a discussion about how to work with anger in a psychodrama? The other fun thing was sharing the tv programmes we liked.
The first words in the group from a group member were about how to deal with anger. And the first drama had quite a focus on Netflix.
I have always put this down to there being a sociometric matrix at work. It does seem like Jung’s synchronicity and “objective psyche”? Even when we use the word psyche for that it is a SOCIOmetric phenomenon I think.
Psychodramatic – and psychological have the Greek word for the soul at their root. The breath, the butterfly. That which has little material weight, like images, imagination, stories, fantasies and dreams. These things are deep in our being, our history — archetypal… and some way collective, they come alive in art, language and theatre.
I keep coming back to: psyche is social. Or, the social is psychological. The social can be seen as the space between, as the image, as the soul, or the heart.
A sociodrama has a sociodramatic question.
A psychodrama has a concern.
Both are questions about life, the psychodramatic question is more about individual dilemmas and healing. A protagonist can do the work and others can learn from that for themselves so a psychodrama usually has a protagonist. However the question can be tackled by the group, it is then a psychodrama is group centered.
A sociodramatic question is about the group, the world, about US. So Mostly a sociodrama does not have a protagonist. But maybe the question is best explored by a person who is living that social dilemma, then Walter have a protagonist centered sociodrama.
A useful distinction but not enough.
Both are drama, both bring to life something of the soul, perhaps the soul of the world, or soul in the world. Both can concretise the imaginal, possible futures hidden images.
Some moments in sociodramas I recall were exquisite moments of theatre. Moving and uncovering the depth of life. Full of soul.
Maybe it is not useful to make any hard and fast distinctions about the socius and the psyche. Both are there as we seek to explore ourselves in the world.
iswould be helpful to move freely along the psychosocial continuum.