I was sitting in a cafe next to a market stall with a range of war-toys as well as soft cuddly animals, dolls tea-sets, girlie hair clips and tin drums and blowers. A father and young son, both dressed in combat fatigues were looking at the toys. Dad large and beefy, tattooing up both arms, 4 year old child, very thin, pale and anxious. The child was drawn towards a large blue, fluffy rabbit, half as big as himself. Dad pulled him away and showed him a wind up soldier, in fatigues and rifle, who crawled along on his belly, pointing the gun. The child turned away to the rabbit, Dad looked exasperated and pulled him back. In the end Dad dragged him off looking angry but also deflated. Something had failed for him that day.
My particular interest lies is what message is being communicated by having the aggressive toys in the first place. By having weapons in the play room or the play therapy room, we are endorsing weaponry as being all right. Play therapists tell me that weapons are needed to express angry feelings - but children have never had difficulty in finding something to express anger: whether it is the drum sticks or a splodgy picture!. I have to put this in the much wider context of the peace process, the current increase of violence in language, and the philosophical implications of our practice. Can we really be honest about moving forward in a spirit of cooperation and mutual respect when we continue to say that weapons are OK?
People will say, 'But what about violence in the theatre and all those weapons in Shakespeare?' - that is the subject of another blog which shows that the 'distancing of theatre' creates a different response from having violence in our faces and on our screens.
No comments:
Post a Comment