Introduction to the Special Issue on the Treatment of Couples and Families With Psychodrama and Action Methods: The Case of Generic Psychodrama

Abstract

When, in the first half of the 20th century, J. L. Moreno proposed the structure of traditional psychodrama, it pertained, primarily, to the composition of the individual treatment session. Moreno (1964) described the individual psychodrama session as having three phases: the warm-up, the action portion, and the sharing phase, which is the part that brings the session to closure. In the early days, adherence to this internal structure was not rigid, and there was an overlap between the phases. In the ensuing years, however, some of Moreno's students provided more detailed descriptions of the dynamics and characteristics of each phase and drew clearer boundaries between them (e.g., Blatner, 2000; Kipper, 1986; Starr, 1977; Yablonsky, 1976). For instance, the action portion was composed of several scenes, all connected by clues generated either by the protagonist or the auxiliaries. The plot of the scenes within
the action phase was to be in an upward, ascending manner with progressively increased involvement, reaching a peak before the end of this part of the session (e.g., Hollander, 1978). For the most part, the focus on the single session and its internal composition remain the foundation, the core, of contemporary practice. In an analysis of psychodrama case illustrations published in the last 25 to 30 years, Kipper and Hundal (2003) wrote, "Regardless of the version of the psychodrama model being practiced, the rationale for the practice retained three characteristics. The session is based on roleplaying enactment, focused on one protagonist, and the single session has a predetermined (usually three phases) structure." (p. 143).