“As progressives we have come to believe that if people address the issue of human development—in direct and practical ways—we might indeed change the world.”

So reads the title page of a booklet the East Side Institute put out several years ago on our history, philosophy and programs. I was reminded of this during the week when I was reading the dialogue among our faculty (myself, Chris Helm, Carrie Lobman and Fred Newman) and students in the Institute’s Social Therapeutics Online certificate program. The 20-week course is winding down and people are revisiting what we’ve read, written and said in reflecting together on the impact (or not) on our lives of what we’ve been doing. The conversation is too rich to keep private and, with the permission of the students and the rest of the faculty, I will share some of it on this site.

Alex is a theatre director and on the drama faculty at a university in South Africa. She’s been involved in community theatre and performance work with adults and young people for years. Throughout the course, she’s been sharing the performance work she’s doing with men in prison, and here she tells us of their conversation at the end of the program.

I had the most amazing group conversation with a small group of the men I have been working with in prison.  It was part of an evaluation of our process, and also part of my research (as a university teacher, I do need to always ‘explain’ what I do), and also part of our process together as we talked about what we believed drama and performance mean for us.  What they talked about was an enactment of all the things that social therapy says is developmental, growthful, educational, about group building through performance.

This group has certainly not been framed or established as a therepeutic group, yet each person talked about how therepeutic their involvement with the group and our activities had been.  I need some more time to listen to the conversation again (which I recorded) and process it all – there were just so many beautiful gems which dialogue with the theory we have been reading in Vygotsky at Work and Play.  In particular, I have just read the last sentance of chapter 2 – “my proposal goes in the opposite direction, namely, that education could be advanced if we consider the teacher as therapist”.  My work with this group has always been constructed educationally – yet, when we had our conversation yesterday, most of the participants ‘learning’ was articulated therepeutically, or socially.

For example, they all talked about how drama had helped them understand others better far more than any other programme, that through becoming another person through performance, they were able to leave the stress of their everyday lives behind and play with new possibilities, it helped them work well with others, communicate better, and most of all, understand themselves and their futures in new ways.  All of them reflected on how performing had helped them with anger and to understand their emotions differently, particularly relationally:  so that they found different strategies when dealing with conflict or understanding where other people had come from.  One of the participants talked about how he had to go and receive a certficate for something but was nervous, and thought that he would just perform confidence, stuck his chest out and collected it with pride.  ”A”, who is a passionate leader and initiator in the group, talked about how he is now always performing – both on and off stage, as he learns new ways to ‘be’ (and become, although these are my words, not his).  He seemed to see himself as what Lois says about “people are primarily performers, not thinkers or knowers”.

Drama always claims that it does these things that the group reflected on, but this is the first time I have heard a group talk about the effect of their work together in this way.  It was a thrilling hour.  When I think about it and the creative activities we have been involved in over the past few months, I start to understand what Lois talks about as the ZPD not being a zone, but an activity.

I “teach” online a lot and I love it. I’ve done a course on Social Therapeutics at Massey University (evidently in New Zealand English, though, a “course” is called a “paper”) and just launched one through the Zur Institute for 6 CEUs. But the bulk of my online teaching is through the East Side Institute—our introductory courses, online certificate program, and in-person/online combo called The International Class.

More of our faculty are offering online courses too, and I work with them on how to do it. I tell them (and hopefully help them) to see an online course as a completely new opportunity for social creativity.

I’ve learned from these newbies some of the things that “seduce” them into relating to the course as if it’s a face-to-face, real time learning environment that just happens to not be face-to-face or real time! Like silence (i.e., no posts) for a few days, or a response to a reading that is very far from what you expect, or a conversational thread that seems “off topic.” In a  regular course, such things are no big deal, but online they can loom large indeed, sometimes enough to worry the course leader into trying to control what will happen, too quickly correct a misunderstanding, ask a lot of questions, or fill in a silence with erudtion—all of which don’t make good use of the uniqueness of the online learning environment.

In my experience, the slowness (or timelessness) of online discussion makes it easier to respond to the whole group even as you are responding to a particular person. You (and everyone else) can read and re-read what people have written, and see the process by which the conversation is being created. Someone can always revisit a topic, something that’s harder to do in regular courses. You can also play with each other’s posts. I’ve had students take a line or two from different people’s posts and create a new post that then becomes part of the mix (and can create another “student” in the course).

Taking playful initiative seems easier online. So does sharing. I’ve found that students tend to be more giving of their life experiences in ways that create a safe place for playing with the most challenging theoretical material. On their own, some have videotaped conversations with friends or colleagues on the readings and posted them for us to see and comment on. Others describe readings and web material that excite them and recommend them to everyone. Others create scenes, take photos, draw pictures.

If you want help with the online environment or have a story to share, post a comment!

I don’t know Michael Thomas, Professor at Nagoya University of Commerce & Business in Japan, but I intend to. I want to thank him for the favorable and thoughtful review of Vygotsky at Work and Play that he wrote for the British Journal of Educational Technology.  He says so well what I was trying to do in writing the book! The review begins…

The influence of Lev Vygotsky’s thought, particularly in relation to social constructivism and socio- cultural theory, has become one of the most prominent methodologies associated with a reorientation of learning in the digital age. This book examines the development and impact of Vygotsky’s thought using an engaging first person narrative and personal account, and examines how it has been applied to a range of learning situations both inside and outside of traditional educational contexts. Although this is not a conventional academic introduction to Vygotsky’s thought then, key concepts such as the zone of proximal development (and the author’s idea of the zone of emotional development) are introduced, and Holzman skillfully interweaves theory and practice throughout the book’s six chapters.

You can read the complete review at the Reviews page

Anyone who knows me and/or visits this site knows I’m an avid supporter of the All Stars Project and have been since it began some decades ago. The All Stars’ program are exquisite applications of the social therapeutic approach to human development because they are uniquely suited to the conditions that young people—especially those who are poor or “of color”—face today. So it was a special honor to be recognized this week at the All Stars Project’s National Gala Benefit, “Out of Crisis: Helping the World’s Youth to Grow.”

At the Lincoln Center event (which raised $3 million), I was given the All Stars Ambassador for Development award  by All Stars’ Board Chair Rich Sokolow and Dr. Elouise Joseph, youth programs manager for the Bay area All Stars and a member of the team I led in March bringing the All Stars’ approach to play to teachers in China.

What made the honor even more meaningful was that it was followed by the 2010 Bridge Building Awards for Leadership in Community Relations, presented to five countries for their exemplary leadership in providing aid to Haiti in the aftermath of January’s devastating earthquake.  All Stars’ youth leaders presented the awards to: Ambassador Osmar V. Chohfi, Consul General of Brazil in New York;  John McNab, Deputy Consul General of Canada in New York; Ambassador Pedro Núñez Mosquera, Permanent Representative of Cuba to the United Nations; Philippe Lalliot, Consul General of France in New York and Asaf Shariv, Consul General of Israel in New York. And Haiti’s Consul General in New York, Felix Augustin, accepted them. It was an honor to be in such company.

I’m so pleased and honored that my book Vygotsky at Work and Play was nominated for the Eleanor Maccoby Book Award in Developmental Psychology, given by Divison 7 (Developmental Psychology) of the American Psychological Association annually. I just posted the nomination on the Reviews page under Vygotsky at Work and Play. Check it out! And heartfelt thanks to the international group of nominators!

In 2004 I initiated a program to support grassroots social entrepreneurs and activist-scholars whose work is too new or innovative or radical to get much support. The program is called  The International Class of the East Side Institute. As of today, over 50 people from five U.S. States and 16 countries have been a part of it. Among them are psychologists from India and Brazil, applied theatre practitioners from Kenya and Canada, community organizers from Uganda and Taiwan, psychotherapists from South Africa and Argentina, youth workers from Nicaragua and Mexico, and educators and social workers from the Philippines and the United States. Coming from different places and professions, they share a desire to change the world-and an eagerness to take advantage of the unique opportunity the International Class offers them to create a global support network, to engage the philosophical, political and psychological issues of their practice, and to study and train as developmentalists with the creators of social therapeutic methodology.

Here is the first issue of The International Class alum newsletter, Reports from the Field.

Enjoy!

These days, la Cuidad Juárez in the state of Chihuahua, Mexico is pretty much known for one thing—violent crime. No denying the destruction of life and transformation of culture that’s hit this city so hard. But it is not the whole story (it never is).

Looking at El Paso and the fence that divides the countries

Houses near CASA

I had the privilege and challenge of spending four days last week in this city on the US-Mexico border just south of El Paso, Texas. My colleague Carrie Lobman and I were invited to share the social therapeutic approach to learning, development, therapy and community building with a diverse group of people in Juárez. Our visit was hosted by CASA (Centro de Asesoría y Promoción de Juvenil, A.C.) and the Department of the Humanities, Universidad Autónomia de la Cuidad Juárez, and arranged and organized by CASA’s Miguel Cortez, a graduate of the East Side Institute’s International Class.

Work/Play Under the Mexican Sun

Our work began Thursday morning with a presentation I made to a packed auditorium at the university, entitled, “Como debe Cambiar la Educación: Juego, Performance e Improvisación para el Desarrollo Humano y el Cambio Social.” After that about 80 of the over 100 attendees crossed the campus courtyard to the workshop room. For 3 hours that day and 4 the next, Carrie and I led the group in performing conversations and improv activities, with both words and body. Near the end of the second day, we divided the group (by now very warmed up and into creating together) into smaller groups to design projects to “grow the city and its youth” and then performatorily share them with the large group. They had great ideas, like Cultural Caravan, Urban Complement, Winds of Change, Shoot Me with Your Ball.

A Performing Group

Tere and Miguel

CASA has a strong and solid presence in the poor community of Juárez. Headed by Maria Teresa Almada (“Tere”) CASA’s staff and practice is passionately progressive—unwavering in their conviction that people CAN develop in the worst of conditions. And they have what appeared to us to be a productive, non-hierarchical working relationship with the university. Throughout our conversations with staff, university faculty and students, and young people we never heard anyone blame either the young people who are killing and being killed (hired by the drug cartels to do their bidding) or their parents. They are, instead, focused on the community as a whole taking responsibility for what is going on and working together to provide prosocial things for young people to do.

On Saturday we led another workshop, this time at CASA. The group of about 60 included many teens—some from a CASA high school project and some who don’t go to school but who volunteer with CASA—and women from the community who are involved in CASA programs. Carrie and I saw some new things of value from leading the group in improv games, especially those involving mirroring and creatively imitating each other. One of the most moving was the transformation of both teens and adults when they started playing together, and seeing the teens’ joy when adults imitated them!  In the environment we all built, Vygotsky’s views on play and creative imitation—and their advancement in social therapeutic practice—were living, breathing forms of life.

CASA Workshop Players

At the CASA Workshop

In a few weeks, I’ll begin working (and playing) with a new International Class—grass roots community activists and scholars who will gather at the East Side Institute for their first residency. Coming from different places and professions, they share a desire to change the world—and an eagerness to take advantage of the unique opportunity that the International Class offers them to create a global support network, to engage the philosophical, political and psychological issues of their practice, and to study and train as developmentalists with the creators of social therapeutic methodology.

At the same time as this new grouping is forming (it’s the sixth year of the program), recent grads continue to work together and support each other. Some of them composed letters/emails sharing their experiences of the Class and its impact on their work and lives. Before sending them to colleagues, they posted them to each other. For the past week or so they’ve been discussing how people in therapy are referred to in their different cultures, and engaging in a fascinating deconstruction of various terms. I asked their permission to post some of their conversation here (they said yes!).

The catalyst was part of the letter Lisa, alum from Brooklyn, NY, wrote:

During this time I also came into social therapy as a patient. I had been in therapy before. Some of it was helpful. But for the most part it was focused on understanding myself—why I was the way I was, what was wrong with me, how to fix my problems. In social therapy the focus was on the group—on what and how I could create with other people in the process of building the group. Social therapy didn’t fix me or take away my craziness, but it helped me build relationships and create my life without being overdetermined by my craziness and my problems.

When they read Lisa’s letter (which they liked overall), some alum questioned the word “patient.”

Peter, in Uganda, commented:

Hi everyone,

Great to read from everyone. I really have enjoyed your writings, thank you.

Lisa, thank you for that piece, I think it’s great. However, I wanted to comment on the word “Patient” as used in the 2nd paragraph. ”… having been a patient for a number of years…..”

Since you have not sent it to the people you don’t know yet, I thought we could change that to another word, though I really don’t know the best word to use, probably “Client”, but I am not sure. Maybe I can invite the group/Lois to comment on it. Otherwise, it’s great.

Lisa responded:

I am open to changing the word “patient,” but I am curious to know more about why you think it would be a good idea and also what everyone else thinks.

One of the things that I think is revolutionary about social therapy is the concept that the “patient” is not a vulnerable, passive, stigmatized person but rather a powerful, active agent in changing his or her life and the world. Or to put it another way, in creating his/her group/therapy. That’s why I am inclined to use/challenge that word. But I could also say “client” or “member of a social therapy group.” Thoughts?

The conversation continued.

From Esben, in Denmark:

I had the same response as you, Lisa – I like the word patient because it’s somewhat of a joke, in the sense that it does not refer to the conventional meaning of patient as passive vulnerable recipient/victim – however, I don’t know if you should make the point clearer, i.e. that in social therapy the patient is “a powerful, active agent in changing his or her life and the world. Or to put it another way, in creating his/her group/therapy.”. I do think using the term patient in this way does help to deconstruct and destigmatize the ‘role’ of patient.

I also just wanted to note that I feel so privileged every time I discover an email from my international friends and colleagues – we’re quite a task force ;o)

Hugs,

From Simon, in Canada:

Hi All,

Regarding the use of the word patient: At first, I thought that the use of the word was just fine; however, when the word was singled out for discussion, I started to think how I dislike the word client, but it also serves a function, just like the word patient, right? Nevertheless, technically, I now wonder if Lisa was ever a patient or was she more like a client? I mean to say that this all seems to be an interesting language game or a real good “joke” (as Esben says). I am not sure Lisa was a patient when I think about - I mean, will the readers get what Lisa is doing linguistically? Well, I would like to think some will. I come to “understand” a patient to be one who has simply received medical treatment; so, the question for me is, has Lisa ”undergone” and is “undergoing” or ”involved in” a psycho-therapy treatment, which would be considered to be providing medical treatment? In North America and many other places in the world, a client is a person taking advice from an attorney, accountant, or another professional person – and in this case, what arises for me is the idea of professionalism and what is a professional? A therapist seem to me to be a professional – so is Lisa a client – does Lisa take advice and does the therapist really give advice? or does the relationship consist of something more allusive . . . is it a unquantifiable exchange or more to the point, is it not a building of community, which is so much more complicated than the capitalistic client-customer-patient model can address? In other words, the relationship between the therapist and Lisa – found within the context of social therapy - is unclear to me actually – the line of client and/or patient seems to me to be blurred, not just because money exchanges hands, which makes Lisa a customer . . . a client . . . a buyer of mental goods (however you want to describe it); but more importantly, if the patient, as a concept “is to be understood as vulnerable, passive, stigmatized person, rather than a powerful, active agent in changing his or her life”. . . I agree with those that have suggested that as long as the point is made clear – as I believe Lisa has done – that Lisa’s idea of being a patient is her “becoming a powerful, active agent in creating her group/therapy,” which is in turn, allows her to create developmental possibilities – WELL, so be it – in this case, if it is good for her, it is good for me.

It was Fun playing with you all Thank you for the opportunity – what a wonderful debate :-)

From Ishita, in India:

Dear Friends

This reminds me of the debate going on worldwide to change the term Schizophrenia. But changing the name does not always change its impact. We need to change people’s outlook, transform the perception of the community towards people suffering from mental illness. Any person can be a patient any time (either suffering from physical or mental illness), so to me patient is a state of human being at particular time and place and not a description of the human being at all.

But we in our center use the term beneficiaries.

Love to all

From Prativa, in India:

I feel that in general the term “Patient” itself refers to a sick person either physical or mental. As we have seen in social therapy sessions, each member of the group is creating an environment for emotional development where they are trying to overcome stigma related to the terms “patient” and “illness.” Lisa, you are also too bold in your expression that I could not match the term patient with you. But I appreciate your revolutionary thought and attempt in using the term “patient.”

From Peter, in Uganda:

Wow, this turns into an interesting conversation, thanks for everyone’s contribution and I feel they are all great.

I commented about the word “Patient” in the context that we (the group) are trying to invite people (both that we know and we don’t know) to learn about Social Therapy and the International Class. And it’s the reason I said to Lisa that it was good she had not sent it out to the people she doesn’t know.

This was because, echoing Prativa’s word that the term “Patient” refers to a sick person, it’s quite easy for one to exonerate/excuse themselves that they are not patients (sick) to join social therapy. But believe me or not, so many people out there, (we are all) either mentally, physically or emotionally “sick”, but they (we) don’t want to believe or accept the fact that they (we) are sick.

Quoting Ishita’s words too (by the way, thank you Ishita for your wonderful contributions), that “we need to change people’s outlook, transform the perception of the community towards people suffering from mental illness,” is another example to show that people don’t want to associate themselves to “illness.” ?I may agree with Lisa when she says, “A patient” is not a vulnerable, passive, stigmatized person but rather a powerful, active agent in changing his or her life and the world, but for any person to understand that, they need to first join and learn/understand what social therapy is all about and to whom it is intended.

Maybe if we may ask Ishita why do you (at your center) use the term “Beneficiaries” to mean “Patients”? probably it will also help us to understand more why we may or may not use the word “Patient.”

From Ishita, in India:

I am enjoying our group discussion.

These are all mainly game of language. But it has some inner meaning too. I think when you are going to a doctor, teacher, lawyer, you expect to be benefited from these professionals. So we use the term beneficiaries who are coming to our center for that particular time for getting some benefit in their life which may be due to some reason they cannot do on their own. Peter, I agree with you as people often refuse to accept themselves as patient when suffering from mental illness, but in the case of chronic schizophrenia or other problems we have seen people prefer to remain in that state as it appears to them a comfortable situation where they need not be active, face challenges of life and think, “I cannot do that because I am a patient.” They do not want to change their performance and they play the same old role day in and day out.

Popular books, especially if they relate to current events, get reviewed  as soon as they are published—and sometimes before. Not so academic books. Alas, it’s typically a year before a review appears in print. So I was pleasantly surprised today to find an email in my inbox from Routledge’s marketing department with two reviews of my book Vygotsky at Work and Play.

One appears in the August 2009 The Psychologist, a journal of the British Psychological Association. The reviewer, Tania Heap from the Open University, seemed to me to “get” the book and was completely engaged by it being a  first person account. I was happy with her concluding words: “Anyone who has in interest in human learning and development should have this original piece of work on their shelves.”

The other review, by organizational psychologist Stephanie L. Brooke, appears in the American Psychological Association’s monthly review of books (online PsycCritiques/Contemporary Psychology) also in August 2009. This review is a rather lengthy and straightforward summary of the contents of the book. This reviewer is clearly more conflicted about the personal style, commenting that “Although subjective, the work is well thought out and well referenced.” Question: When did subjectivity and thinking become opposites?

I’ll keep you posted. Meanwhile, feel free to write a review!!!!

I’ll keep you posted!

I’ve been making a series of presentations in recent months around New York City and I’ve thoroughly enjoyed speaking with diverse audiences of undergraduates, graduate students, faculty and staffs at universities, conferences and human service organizations. The topics of my talks have varied—”Play is the Thing,” “Learning in Groups,” “Language Learning as Vygotskian Performance”—and the conversations have taken many different directions. But they are all relate to certain concepts of Vygotsky’s that have intrigued and inspired me for a long, long time.  I try to capture these concepts with quotes from Vygotsky’s writings. What do you think? Do they resonate with you? Intrigue? Inspire?

“The search for method becomes one of the most important problems of the entire enterprise of understanding the uniquely human forms of psychological activity. In this case, the method is simultaneously prerequisite and product, the tool and the result of the study.” (Mind in Society, 1978, p. 65)

“In play a child always behaves beyond his average age, above his daily behavior; in play it is as though he were a head taller than himself.” (Mind in Society, 1978, p. 102). 

“The development of a corresponding concept is not completed but only beginning at the moment a new word is learned. The new word is not the culmination but the beginning of the development of a concept. Here, as everywhere, the development of the meaningful aspect of speech turns out to be the basic and decisive process in the development of the child’s thinking and speech.” (Thinking and Speech, 1987, p. 241)

“The relationship of thought to word is not a thing but a process, a movement from thought to word and from word to thought … Thought is not expressed but completed in the word. We can, therefore, speak of the establishment (i.e., the unity of being and nonbeing) of thought in the word … The structure of speech is not simply the mirror image of the structure of thought. It cannot, therefore, be placed on thought like clothes off a rack. Speech does not merely serve as the expression of developed thought. Thought is restructured as it is transformed into speech. It is not expressed but completed in the word.” (Thinking and Speech, 1987, p. 250-1)

I am compelled to comment on this last quote, because it is so provocative and evocative! Here’s what my colleague Fred Newman and I think about its implications: If speaking is the completing of thinking, if the process is continuously creative in socio-cultural space (that is, if mind is in society), then it follows that the “completer” does not have to be the one who is doing the thinking. Others can complete for us. In doing so, they are no more saying what we are thinking than we are saying what we are thinking when we complete ourselves. This implication is key to our understanding of emotional growth in social therapeutics.