When working with masks through dramatherapy there are many different options, from using existing masks of known characters, generic masks, neutral masks, either as they are or decorated by the client, or a self-mask made from plaster moulded to the clients’ own face. The self-mask is a particularly powerful therapeutic tool as with the completion of self-masks individuals have the opportunity to literally face themselves (Dunn-Snow and Joy-Smellie, 2000, p. 127). Working with a cast of your own face and having the opportunity to alter that face or represent different aspect of the self through symbolic shapes, colours or images put onto the self-mask, allows the client to explore and interact with different aspect of their identity and self-image. This is particularly effective with mask-work as masks can have layers of symbolic meanings, and ‘the important understanding of symbols in dramatic ritual is their polysemic nature, that they are multidimensional means of expression’ (Jennings, 1987, p. 4).
This form of mask-work very much benefits from working one-on-one with the client. The making of the mask is time-consuming and a very intimate process that can be used to build trust and rapport between client and therapist. The client is placed in a potentially vulnerable position during the making of the self-mask, which requires the therapist to touch the client’s face and work in close proximity to them. For this process to be a successful part of the therapeutic process there must be a trusting relationship between the therapist and the individual, and the individual not the therapist, should initiate the activity (Dunn-Snow and Joy-Smellie, 2000, p. 127).
Along with the additional time and individual attention the therapist and client can benefit from when doing mask-work, another benefit is that the mask chosen or created by the client can become an object that the client can then use to project onto or interact with. As opposed to working in a group, when working one-on-one clients can use a mask or masks to interact with. This provides an opportunity to role-play with the mask, create stories with the mask or masks, and of course embody the mask and play out the character of the mask, either using individual monologues or in interaction with the therapist. In their work with masks and returned soldiers with PTSD and brain injuries, Walker, Kaimal, Gonzaga, Myers-Coffman, and DeGraba found that the externalisation of some of the service men and women’s internal struggles offered many participants a way to ‘talk about their unseen wounds and struggles by referring to an object – an integrated visual image in the form of a mask’ (Walker et al, 2017, p. 9). Projecting thoughts, feeling and concerns onto an external object can make it much easier and safer for clients to discuss particularly painful issues in their lives.
Although there are many advantages of working one-on-one with clients doing mask-work there are some disadvantages as well, the primary one being that you do not have the benefit of a group witnessing your work. For the client in a dramatherapy session the ‘movement from idea forming to rehearsal to showing may be the main therapeutic work…by
engaging in the physicalisation or representation a shift in the client’s relationship to the material may occur’ (Jones, 1991, p. 10). When working one-on-one the therapeutic benefit of this process is greatly reduced as the only witness for the work is the therapist. As a result of not having witnesses for the mask-work the client may also feel more isolated in their work. Dunn-Snow and Joy-Smellie, when discussing group work in their own research, quote Yalom, who states that ‘groups promote the concept of universality, which suggests that we are not the only one in the world with a specific life experience, problem or concern’ (Dunn-Snow and Joy-Smellie, 2000, p. 125). The opportunity to experience other people’s masks and issues, and to resonate with the universality of problems connected to the human condition, can be very reassuring and empowering for clients.
A further difficulty in working one-on-one with clients using masks is that the client does not have others to work with in role-plays or stories. Although the client can create role-plays using other objects (other masks or dolls for instance) to project onto, they will not benefit from the spontaneity, genuine interactions and insights that can come from having someone else to work with. Working with others and witnessing each other’s work is a very important part of the dramatherapeutic process. It can be that ‘as a result of the content and action we witness, we may shift our relationship with the projected feelings during or after the engagement with the performance…which may in turn effect the way we understand and feel about the parts of ourselves which have been engaged with the projection’ (Jones, 1991, p. 9) making it a much more meaningful and beneficial experience for the whole group.
There are both advantages and disadvantages of working with masks in dramatherapy with individual clients. The advantages outweigh the disadvantages however, and the individual attention, extra time and rapport building that can be such a beneficial part of working one-on-one are a particular asset when working with masks which can be very intensive work. Although clients do not have the advantage of working with a group, sharing experiences and witnessing others’ work, the mask itself can be used as a character to create improvisations, and the witnessing of the therapist can be vital to the client’s processing of their issues. Mask-work is extremely effective and powerful, and I would use it both with individuals and groups with equal enthusiasm.
References
Breitenbach, N. (1979) Secret Faces, Dramatherapy, Vol. 3, No. 2: 18-23.
Dunn-Snow, P. and Joy-Smellie, S. (2000) Teaching Art Therapy Techniques: Mask-making, A Case in Point, Art Therapy, Vol. 17, No. 2: 125-131.
Janzing, H. (1998) The Use of the Mask in Psychotherapy, The Arts in Psychotherapy, Vol. 25, No. 3: 151-157.
Jennings, S. (1987) Dramatherapy: Symbolic Structure Symbolic Process, Dramatherapy, Vol. 10, No. 2: 3-7.
Jones, P. (1991) Dramatherapy: Five Core Processes, Dramatherapy, Vol. 14, No. 1: 8-15.
Massanari, R. (2000) Seeing (through) masks: An exploration of masks and mask making, Visual Anthropology, Vol. 13, No. 3: 279-294.
Roy, D. (2016) Masks as a Method: Meyerhold to Mnouchkine, Cogent Arts and Humanities, Vol. 3, No. 1236436: 1-11.
Trepal-Wollenzier, H. and Wester, K. (2002) The Use of Masks in Counseling, Journal of Clinical Activities, Assignments and Handouts in Psychotherapy Practice, Vol. 2, No. 2: 123-130.
Walker, M., Kaimal, G., Gonzaga, A., Myers-Coffman, K. and DeGraba, T. (2017) Active-duty military service members’ visual representations of PTSD and TBI in masks, International Journal of Qualitative Studies on Health and Well-Being, Vol. 12, No. 1: 1-12.
