Example 1:  A Three-Cycle Sequence.

         Karen McLellan and I ran this sequence in 1970 at an Eastern college, with people who lived together in a small dormitory and asked us to do a workshop on sexuality.  It involved twelve players, two gamekeepers, and four and a half hours of time, in one large lounge.  The cycles are (3-4), (5-7), and (9-14).

1.  Planning

         The gamekeepers came prepared .

2.  General context  (10 min.)

          An overview of the sequence, and some words on games and gamekeeping.

3.  Content context  (10 min.)

          An informal discussion by both gamekeepers of the Taoist polarities - yin/yang, aggressive/receptive, hard/soft, creative/nurturing, and so on -- suggesting that each person, male or female, embodies both poles.

4.  Reaction and read-out  (20 min.)

          A loose open-circle process.  Asking the players to talk about their own ideas of sexuality, the gamekeepers were silent.

5.  Context  (5 min.)

         Introducing the next game.

6.  Animals  (25 min.)

         Each player expressed an aspect of his/her sexuality.  The game did not continue into interaction (phase III).

7.  Discussion  (20 min)

          An open-interview process, tightly run by the gamekeepers.

8.  Intermission (10 min.)

         Some break was needed, and this was a good time and place.  The gamekeepers evaluated the first two cycles, and decided to proceed as planned.

9.  Context  (5 min.)

         Preparing the next game.

10-12. Reciprocal theater  (80 min.)

         The male gamekeeper went off with the men, the female with the women.  Each group decided on and prepared a piece of theater, a skit, to represent a neglected aspect of its own sexuality.  The gamekeepers advised their processes but didn't influence its content.  The groups came back together, and took turns presenting their skits to each other. (30 min. for decision, 30 for creation and rehearsal, two 10 min. presentations.)

13.  Reciprocal fishbowl  (20 min.)

         Each group discussed its reaction to the other's theater while the other listened, in turn.

14..  Discussion  (40 min.)

         An open-interview process, with everyone interviewing.  The gamekeepers contributed their observations too.

15.  Evaluation (15 min.)

         The players discussed the learning they felt happened through the sequence.  The gamekeepers talked a bit more about learning games.

16.  Post-evaluation

         At the gamekeepers' pleasure.



         Beside the basic cyclings between attention to process and to content, and between experience and reflection, this sequence embodies the following progressions:

         Input (3) gives rise to reaction (4), which is translated into expression (6), which after reaction (7) is translated into collective expression (10-12) and absorbed (12) and reacted to (13, 14).

         Cognitive work (2-4) leads into private body work (6), which generates emotional (7) and emotional-cognitive (10) work, which leads into collective fantasy-and-body work (11, 12), which leads into collective emotional-cognitive work (13, 14). Outside input (3) is digested (4) and stimulates inside input (4); they are both digested (6) and generate more inside input (6,7,10); it is digested (7, 10, 11) and stimulates more inside input (11, 12, 13), which is digested (13, 14) along with new outside input (14); then an overall digestion happens (15, 16) of an overall input on games (1-14).

         The initial content input (3) by the gamekeepers is calculated not to determine the particular content the players deal with, but rather to open it up to whatever is in them by suggesting a framework which is wide enough to accommodate everything.  Animals (3) serves as a warm-up for collective theater (10-12). Each major input (3, 6, 12, 13) serves as the ice-breaker for an open process (4, 7, 13, 14), as does the game input (2-14, 1-15) for the evaluations (14, 15).  There is a fair proportion of active body work (75 minutes in 6, 11, 12); a decent balance between theater (95 minutes in 6 and 11-13) and discussion (145 minutes in 4, 7, 10, 13-5); and the proportion of process-attention in the whole (45 minutes in 2, 3, 5, 9, 15) is reasonable.

         One weakness in this example is the lack of any explicit focus on the processes of the players' work together, either during the sequence as it is going on, or in the ending evaluation (15).



Go to: Top   |  Next   |  LG Contents   |  Home