Zingers #8: Connections between Virginia Satir's Family Therapy Model and Improvisation

[David Zinger]

I found myself thinking of Virginia Satir while watching Keith Johnstone work. I had the opportunity of doing some work with Virginia in the 1980's. Virginia Satir was a very well-known family therapist.

Before making connections I want to acknowledge that the most significant difference is that Satir's guidelines and games are therapuetic while improvisation games and guidelines are dramatic. They do not share the same context or intention. Having said this I believe improvisors would find reading Satir's book, PeopleMaking, an insightful read.

Both Satir and improvisation works with groups. Satir's group was the family while improvisation is the improv group or team.

As I attended this course with Keith Johnstone I thought about the connections between Satir's work and Keith's approach from the use of games and status relationships to creating movement and having people altered.

Virginia Satir's Five Freedoms
1. The freedom to see and hear what is here instead of what should be, was, or will be.
2. The freedom to say what one feels and thinks, instead of what one should.
3. The freedom to feel what one feels, instead of what one ought.
4. The freedom to ask for what one wants, instead of always waiting for permission.
5. The freedom to take risks in one’s own behalf, instead of choosing to be only ‘secure’ and not rocking the boat.”

A good set of freedoms for an individual in a family or an improvisation group.

Keith Johnstone pays close attention to status relationships. This made me think of Satir's work with family games. Here is a short explanation of Virginia Satir's communication games:

Satir used a lot of communication “games” in her work. She utilized role plays. One of her games involved the use of the roles she has named Placater, Distracter, Blamer and Computer. She feels these roles run through a lot of families.

The Placater always agrees, in an attempt to avoid anger. Beneath the surface is generally frustrated rage.

The Blamer hides fear by blaming others before they can blame him/her.

The Computer searches for security by intellectualizing everything, lest a real emotion break through and s/he “fall apart.” The Distracter protects him/herself by distracting, changing the subject, shifting the frame of reference, etc. (“If I break up their concentration, I’ll be safe.”)

Satir will often have families try on all the roles and rotate them, so each family member gets a feeling for the different roles. It is often revealing to play an opposite role, or a role one has generally seen performed by another family member.

I certainly would caution against a therapeutic model for improvisation while also encouraging improvisors to read some of Satir's work to enhance their understanding of group/family dynamics.

[David Zinger]

Good point about intention denzil...I use it improvisation for career development, for presenting, for being with my children, for therapy, etc...

[denzil meyers]

i agree with simo... the therapeutic is always there, and depends on the application and intention. improvisation is a tool with many uses!

[Simo Routarinne]

Thanks David!
It took me several months to land on this post, but I am so happy I finally did! I will get the book and read it!

And have you read Daniel J. Wiener's book Rehearsals for Growth
Theater Improvisation for Psychotherapists

If not, I strongly recommend that!

I personally think that therapeutical aspect is always there, whether we do improvisation on stage (in the 'safenet' of fiction) or play with real life content (as in corporate work).

I still think of it as non-therapy :-) I would call it learning by playing, expanding your expressive tools, rehearsing/enhancing social skills or simply being playful!

Thanks for posting!

Simo