First of all thanks for your comment. And to add to that, it looks like you are correct. There are a few things to be cautious about though:

A) Yes this can be used for situations of extreme emotions, but I would be careful. Extreme emotions often stem from early life experiences and when touching on such issues it would be best to have experienced guidance handle it.

B) Yes, but the client doesn’t need to stand behind. The client should be on the sideline, looking at the situation from an outside perspective. The client only stands behind the proxy when positioning the proxy in the space.

C) The second (and consecutive other) standin plays the role of the biggot in your terms. You may need additional stand ins for other people or groups in the situation. You also use proxies if you want to place someone’s ‘good intention’ in the space.

When you have 2 people who have a disagreement you can use this technique foremostly to get them to respect each others views. If you want to tackle the deeper problem of where such emotions come from, I would suggest consulting a therapist first. Because this technique can stir up some profound emotions.

As far as ‘acting out’ goes, it is always the supervisor who is asking all the questions and guiding the process. This is a very important aspect; do not let everyone just act out what they feel like. Also, try to put questions in terms of feelings: ‘how does this situation make you feel’ or ‘what does the change in position of person A do to you?’.

My advice would be to start with something small and simple, with a couple of friends. Just to experience the technique and get used to it.

B/ The stand in acts as a proxy for the client who is directed into the space and the client stands behind.

C/ The second stand in, is playing the role of biggot.

B/ and C/ act out the scenario playing out the conflict defending either case so the client is one step removed from that situation and can see the extremes from a distance.

I have not tried this but am involved in youth theatre so I may find this useful in exploring extremes in opinion and conflict situations in which players are directly opposed ignighting extreme emotions.

The supervisors role is one of mediator in which the action is refleced upon without bias.

Could this be done when one is confronted with extreme differences of opinion where values clash, could one find a way to be one step removed watching over the scene as an observer. Today I had such a conflict with a friend as we could not aggree on a subject having different values. As we decided to disagree and leave the heated emotions to cool we talked about how as one may have an overview of ones emotions and see the players struggling with their conflict, stepping back from the extreme emotion was perhaps what we did but not consciously because I had a point in which I was walking out the door with an unresolved conflict to carry. In therauetic frames I understand that the client will run through a scenario with a therapist who acts in the role of the agitator and the client is encouraed to observe the extreme emotions in a ’safe’ setting.

I appreciate how i struggle when I experience the emotions of not being acnkowledged and begin to fight to be heard, this conflict can escalate with me wanting to flee. I see that but then realise that i am not getting anywhere are back down or resolve to admit our differences, I can surrender to the fact that others have another view from my own and also we may not share the same values. Trick is I think is to be able to console oneself by accepting and surrendering to an impass. Thankyou for this practical advice from the Roman’s because players upon the stage of life we are and so in mastering extreme emotions may we remain in the centre of balance.

Regards Janet Tooby