Improv: Cutting Through the Fog?

I left off last time by citing Keith Sawyer’s contention that improvisation provides a better model for describing everyday interactions than does Erving Goffman’s script model. On the face of it, improv would seem to be the Daily Improviser’s ideal entrée to the “nothing between” state of mastery which I’ve described at length in this blog.

After all, isn’t that what improv is? Creating something out of whole cloth - something that had never previously existed - based on being fully in the now and tapping a mainline to direct experiencing of the current reality?

Actually, Sawyer’s observations cast a different light on the role that improv plays in our communications. In the process, I think, he further brings into question the feasibility – and even the necessity - of attaining mastery as Zaffron and Logan define it.

Sawyer notes that we don’t literally perform word-for-word scripts in our daily interactions, as Goffman’s theories would seem to imply. Yet, he says, neither do we completely make up our communications anew every time. Based on his observations of a wide variety of situations, Sawyer says:

“Although our conversations are not fully scripted, there are two kinds of structures that we use in conversation. First of all, we often weave in catchphrases – little pieces of script that are building blocks in our improvisations. Second, some of our conversations are created within an overall framework – a common situation like the restaurant or the post office – where the flow of the conversation is predetermined.”

To illustrate his point, Sawyer describes his observations of some natural improvisers, i.e., children at play. Sawyer notes one instance in which some children began performing a Christmas scene that began with one child calling out the catchphrase, “Santa Claus is coming!” Rather than immediately enacting a standard “Christmas script,” though, the other children spontaneously overlaid a “horror movie” script on the proceedings by screaming and running to their (pretend) beds. The scene then continued with a procession of other holiday icons (the Easter Bunny, Halloween figures) who provoked mock terror rather than glee with their arrival.

So, even in improv, there is “stuff” between us and our environment – and much of it seems like good stuff, which we bring in from our past to convey meaning and to help make sense of the world in front of us right now. Rather than playing make-it-all-up as she encounters her world, the Daily improviser may well legitimately use “shorthand” phrases and words and concepts that help her communicate with others. And as with the children in Sawyer’s example who amalgamated multiple “scripts,” she can also combine elements from her experience – knowledge, conclusions, observations, theories – in new ways to deal with new situations.

In upcoming articles, I’ll continue to explore the topic of “direct experiencing of reality” and the stuff that can – and perhaps should – intervene between us and the things we’re dealing with. I’ll also explore what I perceive to be the limits of our reliance on existing structures such as catchphrases and loosely scripted frameworks.