The Ego and the Self in Actor Training
The Ego and the Self in Actor Training
by
William Weiss
Character analysis is a description of a personal identity, the ego. The ego is
necessarily idiosyncratic, all egos are unique, because the identity is defined as being
different from others. Since the actor’s ego does not disappear when playing a role,
the process involves both dis-identifying with herself and finding a common identity
with a character who is unlike herself. This process demands awareness of the
impersonal and the universal because how else will the actor make the transition from
his to other egos?
In actor training, character analysis requires the recognition of the universals in ego
identification, whereas bodily and voice training demand an identification with a mind
that is neutral and impersonal. Although the term mind encompasses the mind of the
ego, we will use it to refer to our spiritual identity, which pre-supposes that our
existence as bodily beings was preceded by a spiritual existence [1]. The paper will
show examples of the universals of ego description and will discuss voice and
movement as neutralizing mind processes. These are necessary tools for actor
training.
Description of the ego
The Canadian Dictionary definition is adequate for the purposes of this discussion:
“The self, esp. as distinct from the world and other selves”. We can think of
ourselves, within this definition as being separate from others and from the world. We
have a personality distinct from other personalities, we have a body different from
other bodies, we have a unique personal history, we have an individual perception of
ourselves, of others and of the world.
This uniqueness makes each of us very special, given that no one was or will ever be
like us. We are different. But it also makes us vulnerable. What we want is not
necessarily what the world will give us. Being in a world of different beings we will
never see the world exactly as others do. Defining ourselves as biological beings we
are prone to famine, disease, war and death. Because of our differences we are
necessarily in conflict with one another, and with all the situations of our lives.
Individual consciousness gives us a vast array of possible choices – all involving
possibilities of conflicts.
Description of the mind or the spiritual self
One of the definitions of mind in the Canadian Dictionary is “Intelligence or the
nonmaterial aspect of being in contrast to the material”. It is possible to interpret this
reference as pertaining to a universal consciousness as opposed to the individual one.
But given that we still experience ourselves as individuals we can call it a “spiritual
self”, the “self” being our own experience of the universal. That identity is the
opposite of the ego because it is not linked to the interests of the ego. Whereas the ego
seeks survival, the nonmaterial is not prone to loss and death. It cannot be hurt, it is
formless, it cannot change, it cannot be in conflict, it is not separate from others, it
cannot be different, it is collective.
Humans are aware of the spiritual self but necessarily translate it into human terms.
The human rendition of the spiritual is inevitably an unsatisfying approximation;
often, a series of concepts, that we can call “ideals”, that often are expressed as myths.
At other times, the spiritual is an experience that cannot be expressed or
communicated directly. For example the concept of “justice” is quite imperfect when
we get a parking ticket, it is justice according to city by-laws, but it is experienced as
injustice by the recipient. The following are some other examples. The concept of
“love” is constantly challenged between lovers, and quite amazingly can transform
itself into hate. The conflicts between parents and children, and even between friends,
show the shortcomings of the myth of love. The concept of “peace” is sometimes a
cessation of war because of the weakness of one of the parties, or because of
agreements involving a series of reluctant compromises. True inner and outer peace is
so rare that we often equate it with death. The concept of “freedom” is restricted by
our individual abilities and collective interests. Some philosophies see our lives as
being largely determined in a way that true freedom becomes an impossibility.
Finally, the concept of “happiness” is constantly challenged by our multiple conflicts
and limitations. Happiness is thus experienced as temporary and subject to the ever
changing events in life. Because of their seeming impossibility, these characteristics
of the spiritual are most often translated as concepts in the world of the ego.
The universal ego
Although the ego is defined by its separateness and uniqueness it has universal
characteristics. Our bodies are different, but we all have bodies, our conflicts are
different but we all have conflicts, our needs and desires may be different but we all
have them. We may have different fears but we all have fears. We are all aware of
unfairness and we often feel victimized. We may interpret situations differently but
we all feel anger and disappointment. We may even accept that others can view life
differently, but we still experience sadness when experiencing loss. We can
understand our limits and those of others but we still seek love and approval. And we
all have a sense of our own imperfection and therefore experience guilt.
More significantly we experience ourselves as incomplete. So we want to be better
than we are, we need to have what we lack, and we must do whatever is necessary to
fulfill our needs. The theatre, where conflict plays a primary role, portrays the world
of the ego. I will develop this with more details shortly. But first I’ll define the
Universal Spiritual Self.
The universal spiritual self
It is most commonly called the divine. Whereas the ego is separate and distinct the
spirit is wholeness and union. The ego sees itself as imperfect, prone to error and to
unpardonable actions (original sin) whereas spirit is innocent and incapable of sin.
The ego is therefore guilt ridden whereas the spirit is guiltless. Thinking that it acted
badly, the ego is fearful of consequences whereas the spirit is loving and fearless. If
the ego sees guilt and fault in others, the spirit overlooks it only recognizing calls for
love. The ego is angry, it feels victimized by life and others, it blames those who
diminished its happiness and who therefore attacked it, while claiming its own
innocence, whereas spirit is always peaceful never attacking, invulnerable to attack.
The ego is often disappointed when it does not get what it wants, anger and sadness
are the results. The spirit is whole and not liable to loss, joy is its natural expression.
I said before that the universal spiritual self is whole and that the ego sees itself as
incomplete. It is this sense of incompleteness that leads the ego to action, whereas the
spiritual self needs to do nothing. Hence the ego looks for objects to love and to be
loved by, for material goods to insure its safety and satisfaction, for deeds and
situations to increase its pleasure and the recognition of others, and for the fulfillment
of needs and the redressing of injustices of the past. Unless these lacks are satisfied
the ego suffers. The suffering leads to further action that seeks relief. Obviously the
spirit is not incomplete and therefore does not suffer. It lives in a world of safety and
certainty. The ego, by contrast, is often in doubt. The ego is in doubt about its actions
and often regrets them. The ego is in doubt of its safety and about the support of
others, and often feels betrayed. The ego can thus lose its bearings in total despair, all
while the spirit is calm and hopeful.
The ego’s identity is the body, and consequently lives on a constantly fluctuating
continuum of pleasure to pain, health to illness, conquest and defense, autonomy and
dependency, life and death. The spirit is immaterial and not subject to fluctuations.
The ego lives in a world of form whereas the spirit is formless. Hence for the ego the
form is fundamental and is a carrier of meaning. For the spirit form is immaterial and
content is all that matters. For the ego, body and mind are one, whereas for the spirit,
its essence is non-material and the body is a projection of the mind. For the ego
different forms, or different gradations of form, have different meanings. For the spirit
variations of form, size and intensity are irrelevant. For example, the ego recognizes
qualitative differences in anger. It can range from a twinge of irritation to a murderous
fury. The spirit makes no such distinctions, it is categorical. For the spirit a minor
insult and the genocide of millions are the same, both are expressions of attack. For
the spirit there is no order of difficulties. For example, forgiving Hitler would be no
more difficult than forgiving a neighbor who omitted to greet you. As we’ll see
shortly, it is this categorical, either the one or the other but not both, non-dualistic
point of view of the universal spiritual self that can be of service in actor’s training.
Finally, the spirit is changeless and not subject to the transformations of time and
space. By contrast, the world of the ego is constantly changing, is has memory of the
past and it prepares itself for the future. The ego is historical while spirit is eternal, the
ego is finite and comes in a myriad of forms, the universal spiritual self is formless
and infinite, it is only content.
Actor training: from personal ego to universal ego and back
The actor, who has an ego, plays a character, which is another ego. It would be
difficult for an ego to play another ego unless they were very similar. In which case
the actor would play herself in imaginary circumstances, and that would entail little
difficulty.
If the character is dissimilar there would have to be a process of dis-identifying with
one’s ego in order to portray a different one. The sheer possibility of relinquishing
one’s ego for the purposes of playacting implies the possibility of identifying with the
mind or the spiritual self even if only temporarily. Is this what Stanislavski refers to in
his numerous appeals of searching for the spiritual? Perhaps. But then the actor is still
called to portray another ego. Is this really possible? Well, the ego is unique and
therefore it can express only itself. But it can refer to the universal ego where, even if
the circumstances are not identical, they share a common mechanism. Suppose that
you are playing Othello but you have never killed anyone. Stanislavski would have
asked you whether you have felt like killing someone (emotion memory) and then use
that memory in your stage actions. But suppose, for argument sake, that you do not
have such a memory. That brings us back to the spiritual self for whom irritation,
impatience, sarcasm, anger, hate, attack, criticism, blame, violence, victimization,
injustice, aggression, envy, murder, debasement etc. are all the same phenomenon.
You can pick any experience from within the continuum of that universal ego and
have your version of Othello. You are back, in fact, to your ego. Chances are that you
have experienced some variation of anger, that you therefore understand the situation
from your point of view, and that you can portray it.
The substitution of one feeling or expression for another is a recognition that although
they may be different in form they are identical in content. However, the ego being
specific, would not recognize that, for it, shades of emotions are distinctive. The actor
would have to refer to her spiritual self to see the sameness of different forms. Hence,
in actor training the process requires the recognition of a universal ego and a universal
mind.
Examples of actor training techniques where universal ego and mind identification is
needed
The purposes of the ego and the mind
There are theatre exercises where the students are encouraged to use their
imagination. A chair can be transformed into a lookout of a war bunker, and a table
into a throne. These exercises have been imported from children’s play. Jacques
Copeau was perhaps the first one to observe children at play and then have his actors
reproduce the games. My four-year-old has an uncanny habit of transforming
everything into a sword, whether it is a pencil, a piece of soap or a carrot. The idea
behind these gestures is that a purpose does an object make. A glass, for example, can
be the container that helps to quench the thirst of an eager child, or holds drinks that
accompany the rapturous sighs of lovers, or it is the hope of revival of an office
worker needing her shot of caffeine, it is also the weapon with which an Austrian
officer offends a rival by throwing the contents into his face, or the container that
holds the medicine of a frail but still hopeful patient.
The point is that we don’t really see the glass but its purpose. Do you look at a glass
and really see it? Or do you recognize a form that you think you know, thereby seeing
your stored image of a glass. Hence the very Zen-like exercises of seeing a chair,
looking at it, really seeing it. Do you really see it? Do we see anything but the past?
The ego sees everything linked to the past. It may be the dissatisfactions or guilt of
the past or the pleasures and whatever seemed good about it. So its purpose is either
to reproduce, or to redress the past, in the future. It is important to see that all the
doings of the ego are linked to the past and are designed to create a better future. Are
any of your actions not linked to the past? Or to the future?
So why did actor training import the “here and now” concept from Gestalt
psychology? Perhaps the idea is that if we are to portray another ego we have to be
able to get out of our own ego, which is getting out of time. This is the realm of the
spiritual self who is always in the realm of the eternal now. This is one of the reasons
for meditation as practiced in Eastern religions, to let go of the past and of the future
and to therefore cease to exist for some moments as a human identity. So studentactors
are asked to cease being a person for a small while, in order to be able to
portray a person different from themselves. The universal ego of the new persona is
also trying to bridge the past to the future. The link of the actor to her spiritual self is a
resting instant in the present, when thoughts about the past and worries about the
future are let go. This is a purpose of the spiritual self. I’ll be talking soon about
neutralization, dis-identifying, relaxation, and other theatre exercises that appeal to
the spiritual self as a stepping stone to acting. But before that, we’ll visit the first of
some steps in acting techniques of the Western tradition.
Character analysis
This is very simply the description of the ego of the character. It is unique by
definition and form, but universal in its dynamics. The ego is incomplete and seeks
completion. The ego is unique and attached to its uniqueness. The ego seeks to redress
the grievances that it holds. These are the habitual purposes behind the actions of the
ego. The ego manifests itself through actions whose purpose is to satisfy its needs.
The universal ego dynamic is:
NEED FULFILMENT
Universal needs such as security, love, justice, honor, fidelity, freedom, are usually
unquestionable. In the theatre there is normally a specific object or form of these
needs which could be called “wants”. So Romeo wants Juliet, but his need is the love
of a woman, and beyond that he simply needs love without which he would feel
incomplete. Nora wants to leave Torvald, her need is for independence, if she did not
leave she would feel unfulfilled. The ongoing scheme is of tension and resolution,
tension being the need, resolution being the fulfillment.
Because the ego is unique its wants are also unique. Romeo does not want any
woman, he feels that he specifically needs Juliet, and so he wants Juliet. And so every
character has specific needs that lead her into actions to fulfill them. The work of an
actor playing the role is to recognize the universal needs of the character, at which
point she could recognize those needs in herself, which means that the particular ego
form will not be an obstacle to understanding and identifying with the role.
The recognition that we identify ourselves as unique but that underlying that
uniqueness there is a universal ego and that therefore we are activated by the same
mechanism independently of our form and history is a spiritual realization. The idea is
that there is a universal mind and that every mind is linked to it. And in any case, if
there were not a universal mind the universal ego would be the universal mind. And if
that were the case, we could never step out of our ego.
Coming back to character analysis, the process is seeing what the character wants,
then ascertaining the universal need, then identifying with it. Clearly, we can identify
with and see the identical needs of the character and ourselves, even if the form is
different, even if the moral system of the character is objectionable to us.
Understanding the character from a universal ego point of view is just the beginning.
The actor has to take into account the given circumstances which define the
psychological makeup of the character. This is the painstaking craft of the actor.
However, every psychological trait conforms to the dynamics of the ego, after all,
psychology is the study and treatment of the ego.
I will borrow some psychological character descriptions from a previous paper of
mine [2]. “When a character is submissive, there is an underlying notion that the tactic
will work in order to get love and support. The search for love connotes a loveless
world and a lack of self-esteem, a sense that one is not good enough to satisfy the
gods. The actor has to be in touch with the need to be loved and with the sadness
when love is withdrawn. The need to seduce another person implies that one is
incomplete and that the other will provide for one’s lacks. Again, the actor has to be
in touch with the need to force others to love us and with our sense of loneliness and
lack. Imposing one’s will upon others may hide a vulnerable side that lost hope of
getting love and approval without effort. The actor has to be in touch with the
pretense of strength and the sense of weakness that forceful behavior may hide. If the
character is withdrawn, there may be a mask of despair, a feeling that one’s emotional
needs may never be satisfied. If a character is proud, there may be a fear that one is
not good enough.
Notice that these emotions can be viewed both psychologically and spiritually.
Spiritually speaking these emotions portray universal unfulfillment, that is, fear, guilt
and disappointment with life, with the gods. The actor has to be in touch with this
cosmic need for happiness. If the character feels victimized, it portrays an unjust
world, a point of view that sees the world as untrustworthy. The point is that we have
all of these feelings within ourselves, although we do not usually have the
circumstances of the characters. These feelings are not idiosyncratic, they are
universal, and they allow us to understand and have a connection with any character.”
One can look at the interpersonal psychology, the social psychology, the physical
psychology and the psychophysical psychology of the character, but they all refer to
the universal ego. Race, gender, social class, physical attraction, handicaps are all
distinguishing traits of ego in relationship to other egos. Understanding the universal
is the door to the particular.
The ego is very specific. This includes the ego of the author and her point of view, the
ego of the character, the ego of the actor and the ego of the director. The ultimate
product is specific and results from a combination of these points of view. If these
points of view are divergent then somebody’s point of view will have to be left out.
However, if there is constant reference to the universal ego then everybody’s point of
view will be taken into account. Egos are only in conflict on specifics.
Text ana
lysis
I said above that the theatre is the realm of the ego. Looking at the nature of
the dramatic situation all of the definitions of the ego are present. Let’s look at them
briefly. Conflict: It is an essential component of the dramatic situation. It can be
internal or external. It has to do with conflicting goals and desires or personal
limitations, and it is a result of the essential incompleteness of the ego. The ego fears
it won’t get what it needs and wants. If the character identified with the spiritual self it
would feel complete and happy, there would be no conflict. Objective: It expresses
the goal, purpose or intention of the dramatic situation. The ego, being incomplete,
seeks to get whatever it feels it lacks and needs. The objective of the spiritual self is
peace and that would require acceptance, forgiveness and relinquishing the ego.
Obstacles: The ego, in its attempts to complete itself, finds itself in hostile
circumstances and seeks to overcome them. The ego often feels victimized by others
and by circumstances. Whatever the reasons –human nature, competition, bad luck,
society — the ego has to struggle to attain its goals. This heightens the energy of the
drama. It also expresses the anger and the blame towards an unjust world that one has
to combat. If the conflict is internal the expression is of self-hatred and guilt. The
spiritual self, unhindered by the ego, has no obstacles in accepting and forgiving any
situation. It never feels shortchanged or compromised because it does not judge and
does not condemn. Action: It is the means to alleviate and resolve the conflict by
attempting to achieve the objective. The ego is a doer, and playing a role is called
acting. The spiritual self, being complete has nothing to do, it expresses only joy,
happiness, love, union, acceptance. Given circumstances: The conditions of the
character seem to determine its objectives and actions. Reflecting the ego, there is a
myriad of forms defined by time and space that justify the conflict, the objective and
the action. The spiritual self is not determined by circumstances, it is changeless and
always sees the same situation.
The actor is seen as both the artist and the instrument of expression. If one identifies
with the ego this is certainly true. Seeing oneself as mind, on the other hand, entails
no longer seeing oneself as an instrument but rather seeing the body as an instrument.
One can use one’s personality and body to create a character but there is a certain
objectivity or distancing. This objectification of the ego allows for deconstructing the
dramatic situation. The actor understands the mechanism of the character and can recreate
it with her body, and because bodies and perceptions are unique, the rendition
will be unique. The interpretation of the actor will comprise her judgments, abilities,
motivations and tastes. The character or the ego sees its needs and conflicts as
essential, the actor must understand and empathize with the character, but it sees the
alternatives to the ego. This way, beyond the interpretation coming out of ego
identification, there may be hints of spiritual options. It would show the basic conflict
of a fighter who aspires to peace, a trickster who wants love, a lover who would like
to be free of the fears of passion. Because the greatest of conflicts is not the needs of
the ego, it is not the obstacles that prevent the character from achieving its goals, it is
not whether one should get married or study medicine, it is between the ego and the
spiritual self. From that point of view, the ego is always on the wrong path because it
seeks a substitution for what the mind wants. And what the world can give are at best
substitutions for what it deeply yearns for. The world’s meager versions of peace,
love, union, joy and justice, are at best approximations and compromises for what the
mind truly wants. Perhaps, it is when we perceive this conflict between the ego and
the mind, that we recognize truly great acting.
Play analysis
I said that the ego is active. At every instant it is working within the structure of
tension and resolution, need and fulfillment. This ego structure is always operative,
whether in every word and action of the character or in the macrocosm of the play.
The ego is constantly constructing its reality, and its constructions reveal its structure.
So, an Aristotelian plot structure of exposition, complication, crisis, climax and
resolution, reflects the ego’s ploy to complete itself, to fulfill its needs, to ascertain its
uniqueness, to redress the past, to prepare a future, to defend itself from attack, to
survive. Actors are asked to find a superobjective which is the play’s central purpose.
If in the play Oedipus Rex, for example, the superobjective is “to save the city” it is
not difficult to see the ego’s need for self preservation, for redressing the past,
condemning the guilty, purifying the sinful. The earthly concepts of justice, health,
righteousness are evoked. But their failure in bringing true satisfaction, peace and
happiness is also obvious. In fact, the message is that achieving your goals will not
make you happy. The city is saved but the cost is terrible. Implicit is the yearning for
spiritual peace and justice. That yearning is played in the structure of every scene,
every beat, every moment of the play. And if the play does not provide the specifics
of the given circumstances of where, when, how, why and who, the actor has to
provide it. Because, the ego is created at every instant, it is linked to the past and it
seeks the future, the mind seems helpless in the face of this inexorable evolution, but
its hopes are still implicit.
The actor’s motivation for playing
Although the actor may have to accommodate her ego to the ego of the character her
ego does not disappear nonetheless. Egos can not disappear because they see survival
as their main task. So what is the motivation of an ego playing another ego? We have
to look for an answer in the universal ego. The ego, being separate, needs to be loved
in its uniqueness. If it has doubts about its loveliness then it needs even more
manifestations of praise, approval, notoriety and fame. All of these are substitutions
for universal love. Acting somebody else’s script, playing an ego different from
oneself, allowing somebody else to direct us, are all acts of submission that have to be
rewarded with love and approval. Otherwise the vicious aspect of the ego may make
an appearance, and the hitherto compliant actor will show her aggressive side. For the
ego every interaction is an exchange and it does not like to be shortchanged.
At this point it is becoming perhaps clear that the ego is a creation of the mind and
that there must be a spiritual reflection behind each of its actions. So, the idea of
relinquishing one’s ego in order to play another one is a recognition that egos are
equivalent, and if we can play one or the other, then fundamentally we are not egos,
we are mind. In other words, we are also playing our own ego, persona or mask. It
must be tiring to play our own ego. Playing someone else’s can give us more rewards.
It is perhaps more restful to forget about ourselves and to identify with others.
Stanislavski said “A characterization is a mask which hides the actor-individual [ego].
Protected by it, he can lay bare his soul [ego] down to the last intimate detail” (1985,
28). This function would be self-discovery, self-expression, release of wearisome
tensions — all added benefits. Is not this what we do as spectators of a play or film? In
which case playing a role or watching it would be a similar endeavor. But let’s come
back to actor training.
The body is the most important symbol of the ego: bodies are separate and unique.
Most conflicts are body based and conflict is the basic ingredient of the theatre.
Without bodies there would be no action, physical attraction, struggles for power or
territory, quests for survival and freedom, status differences, and life, aging and death.
The theatre as a visual performance needs bodies. Even radio plays presuppose
bodies.
Movement training
The ultimate goal of movement training for actors is physicalizing the character,
which allows for the externalization of the ego characteristics. The character is then
minutely composed with regards to its center, energy, rhythm and gestures.
Furthermore the body represents the ego’s mind. In movement training the body is
seen as the mind. So the body is seen as the engine of emotions. Relaxation is
physical relaxation, tension is muscular tension, blockages are bodily blockages. The
body is not only seen as the tool that affects the mind but just another facet of the
mind. It is no wonder that neutralizing exercises are basic in movement training. The
idea is that if the body represents the actor’s ego, that ego has to be erased
momentarily, in order to allow her to play another ego, which means different bodily
characteristics. In exercises such as centering, kinesthetic awareness, relaxation,
alignment, breathing, yoga (a favorite) and even meditation, the ego is neutralized.
The trainee is encouraged to “let go” of tensions, stress and even emotions. The actor
observes her body as if she was outside, the body no longer represents her personality
and its goals but becomes an object. The actor dis-identifies with her most important
ego image. It becomes then a springboard for the portrayal of new egos. Is not that a
moment when the actor identifies with her mind? If the actor sees herself as
awareness of her body and not her body, then that awareness is free to roam
elsewhere, beyond the body. That awareness may still be seen as personal and
therefore separate, but it still distinguishes between the body and awareness, between
emotions and awareness, between thoughts that are active and awareness that is
passive. There is no action in awareness, there is no conflict in awareness, there are no
emotions in awareness, although one can be aware of emotions, and if one can be
aware of formlessness with no thoughts one is aware of the non-ego self which we
called the spiritual self. From that experience the actor can return to the body and see
it as a symbol, whereas before she would see it as being herself. As a symbol the body
can play different egos, whereas if the actor sees herself as a body it can only be itself.
In fact, if the body is a projection of the mind, then the body cannot learn, it is the
mind that learns, bodily training is mind training.
The body as a symbol can be subdivided because the ego, as a composite identity, can
be fragmented. But each fragment represents another aspect of the ego. When the
actor puts her awareness in the head the expression is intellectual. The mental has to
do with understanding, planning, mastering, plotting, all ego devices for control,
domination, defense and attack, necessary for a being in a situation of conflict and
fear.
Moving while putting one’s attention on the sexual organs is an expression of
seduction or domination, a need to be fulfilled by the ego who needs to complete itself
by mating with other beings. If attention is put on the belly the expression is down to
earth, practical, concrete, laboring. The ego does things and makes objects, it is a
worker. Expression from the chest has to do with openness of communication, the
heart being the symbol of earthly love and the connection to friends and allies. After
all, the ego is dependent on the support of others.
One could go on fragmenting the expressive qualities of the body. And given that
different characters emphasize different aspects of personality the actor has a tool for
creating new combinations of traits. Intrinsic in this process is the idea that the ego
would be incapable of choosing aspects different from itself, just like a computer
could not choose to operate itself beyond the operating system in which it was
programmed. So, bodily training of actors necessarily appeals to the non-ego mind.
Jacques Lecoq said in one of his school brochures that sublime movement tends to
immobility. The body can move and create wonderful images but the spiritual
yearning is for total union. In great acting there is a painful paradox of seeking union,
which the body being separate is incapable of accomplishing.
Voice and speech training
Voice and speech training is bodily training. Voice and speech are produced by the
jaw, the tongue, the larynx, the lungs, the chest and the abdomen. Speech is the most
sophisticated means of communication of the ego because it uses words, which are
symbols. The word “glass” is not a glass, and a glass is also a symbol, as we saw
above. Hence, speech is a process of communication with symbols twice removed
from reality. The listeners decipher the symbols and substitute their own images for
them. Therefore the ego communicates by symbols and images. The spiritual self is
connected to the universal mind and therefore is linked to other minds, it
communicates directly and needs no symbols or images, it needs no language. The
ego is so dependent on language for its survival that humans see their language as an
intrinsic aspect of their identity. Language expresses ethnicity, geography, historical
period, social class, education, culture, age, all details that define the uniqueness of
the ego. Given the strong identification with language, in actor training the task again
is to dis-identify with that aspect of the ego.
The process again is to neutralize the body, to become aware of the mechanism of
speech production, and to revisit objectively each bodily part that produces speech.
Through this process the actor discovers that speech can be produced differently, and
that makes possible the pronunciation of different manners of speaking such as
dialects, accents, voice qualities, and different language styles, whether
conversational or literary. The task is similar to that of learning a foreign language,
and entails the same difficulties, which essentially is laying aside that identification.
The more the student is attached to her self image the more arduous the task. The
student is asked to lay aside her already mastered speech and to start the learning
process again, like an infant. In that process other aspects of the ego in its individual
relationship to the world are uncovered. The voice, being a bodily expression, reveals
personality traits such as shyness, roughness, self-esteem, stridency, seductiveness,
immaturity, resistance, sloppiness. The task is again to neutralize these ego
characteristics opening the way to new character compositions. The student is asked
to let go of her social and psychological traits, in a process similar to psychological
therapy. The realization is that one is not indelibly linked to one’s ego characteristics.
And that process of loosening the ego reveals, even if only by inference, the
arbitrariness of ego, and the possibility of identification with the mind. The student
also learns that new voice qualities express different ego characteristics.
Being able to produce different manners of speech is an invaluable tool for an actor.
Nevertheless speech is an expression of the ego, great acting expresses the yearning
behind speech, it is a yearning for the elimination of the necessity of speech, it begs
for silence and for the direct communication of the mind.
Theatre anthropology
There are theatrical creations that tend so much towards the abstract that there is no
longer a perceivable narrative form. Grotowski’s productions, the Open Theatre, The
Roy Hart Theatre, Robert Wilson’s productions, Noh Theatre, Bhuto performances, as
well as traditional Eastern forms such as Kathakali and Balinese dancing come to
mind as examples. If there is a coded or an idiosyncratic bodily and sound language
which is understandable to the initiated then there is still a narrative form in spite of
the non-realistic elements. But these “non-daily” techniques which have attracted the
attention of the new “theatre anthropologists” such as Eugenio Barba, are examples of
molding the normal ego images into abstract ones. In the case of Eastern theatre the
training starts in childhood, the actor devotes her life to the theatre, and the intention
is that of sacrificing the ego. The ritual origins and spiritual intentions are quite clear
in these forms. The Western creations mentioned above also seem to question the ego.
If there is no communication which the ego can understand, then there are only
images, which normally are the realm of the ego, but which no longer seem to
represent the interests of the ego. The ego then loses meaning and feels threatened.
And the reflection can be that of the formlessness of the mind and the
meaninglessness of images. It would be impossible for the ego to identify with such
images. Actors in such productions would not get the usual ego rewards of success
but would be giving a metaphysical message by abandoning their habitual ego
images. The idea is that we invented the world we see and that there is nothing
stopping us from inventing another one.
The theatre from its beginnings was seen as a didactic tool. By portraying the ego the
theatre warns of its shortcomings. Sometimes very directly, like Voltaire’s pieces à
these, naturalism, Shaw or Brecht’s theatre. The idea is that by understanding the ego
one can avoid its pitfalls and create a better ego with an improved moral system. What
would be the effect if actors were trained to perceive the universal ego, with its basic
premises of separateness, guilt, fear, condemnation and attack? The focus would shift
from the ego to the mind. The motivations of the characters would be of more interest
than their actions. All needs and desires would be of interest, not their fulfillment.
Such unquestioned premises as succeeding in the world, being victorious in one’s
endeavors, eradicating injustice, getting love, would be redirected to the mind and its
perception and judgment of life’s purpose. Acting itself reflects the world of the ego
whereby we are all acting out our individual egos. We don’t seem to have a choice
about our habitual ego identity but from the point of view of the mind we have chosen
it. But actors could bring in the hidden side of the character by bringing to life its ego,
the actor’s ego, the universal ego and the universal mind. The universal mind is not
quite expressible with the body and the voice, it is rather an inference, the opposite of
the world we know, an experience of the mind that transcending the form would
communicate directly to the mind of the audience. In fact, the expression of the
universal spiritual mind would normally be in contradiction with the reaction of the
character. It can appear as an unsaid recognition that the world one is yearning for is
not this one. The message there is that the world can be the theatre of the ego or of the
mind.
Notes
[1] My own background is a continuous search of meaning in the philosophies and
religions of East and West. In the last thirty years I studied and practiced Jungian and
Reichian analysis, Zen Buddhist Meditation, Transpersonal Psychology, Yoga,
Transcendental Meditation, Werner Erhard’s Est Training, Robert Fritz’s DMA, Eva
Pierrakos’s Pathwork, and A Course in Miracles, among others. In this context, the
Ego is the individual self living in an illusory world, whereas the Mind is the spiritual
self living with its source in a unified formless world.
[2] “In spite of the supposed ritual origins of theatre in ancient Greece is there a
connection between Western theatre and religious rituals?”, International Federation
for Theatre Research, Theatre and Holy Scriptures. Tel-Aviv, Israel, June 1996.
Works Cited
Stanislavski, Constantin, 1985, Building a Character, New York, Theatre Arts Books.