It’s conundrum time again! My thanks to subscriber ‘Fellow Facilitator’ who sent in the following message:
Recently, I've penned a new CV, and wanting to really emphasise my unique pedagogy, I have described my work as 'generative' - as coming from generative themes, and work placed within the context of the participants.
Broadly, what I mean by generative is thus - that I use stories and ideas that will create excitement in children and young people, directly pulled from themes, ideas and cliches from pop culture, to access a deeper level of education.
For example, I am currently leading an adventure club. Each week, we aim to explore a new culture, some history, and some language - all with the aim of combatting the rising intolerance of difference in society, given that these young people will have mass 'migration crises' on their hands, caused by wars, climate change, and more. A more tolerant society might rise and respond more effectively - at least, that's the Big P political aim that influences our work.
And thus, I use the word 'generative' - because I've identified stories that are held in common knowledge and which have broad appeal.
But... Is it 'generative'? Or am I just trying to sound fancy to make myself feel like my work is of a higher spec than it is? And additionally, if it is not generative - how can I make it so?
LET’S BEGIN BY CLARIFYING our understanding of ‘Generative’. In common usage the word, an offshoot of the verb 'generate', refers to the act of creation. Consider the difference between 'descriptive' and 'generative' artificial intelligence (AI). The first refers to a system's ability to discern, analyse and summarise large amounts of data. It describes what is already there. The second, GenAI, is a system that creates (generates) content that did not previously exist - an illustration, piece of music or a blog post (not this one though!). In this sense, then, a generative drama facilitator is one who creates. We could split hairs about who does the creating, but, I'm not sure that this is a useful discrimination to make. To consider the definition from the opposite: wouldn't 'non-generative' facilitation (i.e. non-creating) simply be poor practice?
That said, you specifically refer to Generative 'Themes', a concept from Critical Pedagogy most closely associated with Paulo Freire. The term is used to refer to the themes - topics, ideas, restrictions, hopes, and challenges - that define participant's lives. They are 'generative' in multiple senses. They generate:
engagement and interest
awareness of contradictions within the world
unfolding questions and connections to other themes (within the participant's 'thematic universe')
possibilities for change and the tasks required to overcome obstacles.
So, it is the theme that is 'generative' rather than the facilitator or the workshop itself. Most notably the Generative Theme is not an object or a thing, but rather something that emerges from the relationship between people and their world. Therefore, a facilitator should not, according to Freire, choose or impose the theme. They can, however, introduce stimulus - photographs, paintings, scenes (Freire calls these 'codes') - through which the participants, in co-investigation with the facilitator, might discover or reveal generative themes (decoding).
There is a lot we could dig into here, particularly in 'decoding' Freire's literacy based vocabulary in a way more appropriate to a drama context. As ever, though, that's probably a job for a longer post. To return to your central question then - is 'generative' the best way to describe your work?
What do you do again?
Well, the work is no doubt generative in the broadest sense (i.e. creative) and it's clear from your description that generative themes might play some part in your approach (more on this below). All said though, I don't think 'generative' is the best way to describe your work to others. It may, or may not be accurate, but, in reality very few people who end up reading your CV will understand what it means! A plainer description might be 'participant-focused' or 'issue led'.1 Or you could opt for a more general term like 'socially-engaged' which sets the tone but avoids unqualifiable promises of change. What your question highlights, however, is the context contingent nature of naming our practice. How do you best describe what you do? In the way that makes the most sense to the person you are talking to, for the reasons you are talking to them.
How should you describe what you do?
In the way that makes the most sense to the person you are talking to.
This is where the advice to have a few different versions of your CV comes from. It's not just about making you look better in different contexts, it is just as much about making what you offer comprehensible to those with an alternative professional world view.
Narrative Frames
You also ask about how you might better engage with generative themes in your work. Firstly, the adventure style workshops (described in more detail in your longer letter), whilst engaging, do not necessarily imply the existence of generative themes. A purist would be quick to point out Freire's insistence that lived experience should not be reduced to abstract terms:
The starting point for organizing the program content of education or political action must be the present, existential, concrete situation, reflecting the aspirations of the people.2
This is where the issue of context hits home! Professionals may well recognise the educational and political import of the work you are doing, but it is probably not the driving force in the young people’s decision to come to Saturday morning drama club.3 A more nuanced reading, however, would recognise that there is latitude where abstracted content (the adventure) leads to the uncovering of lived experience (questions of ownership, justice, diversity etc.). However, the key is in the generation of critical questions, if the theme only generates material or excitement it may well be derivative - a consumer like engagement with dominant forms.4
This isn't a recommendation to ditch the adventure quest for an improvisation about neoliberal alienation at middle school. It is a recognition that the former has more potential as a narrative frame to uncover the themes that are explicitly imposed in the latter. Not only does the adventure offer excitement it also comes with a set of role expectations. The participants know where they fit into the story. The role of an explorer, detective or adventuring archaeologist is to work with incomplete knowledge, uncover what is really going on, and confront complex/contradictory situations.5 Whether these role tasks lead to increased critical consciousness or a reinforcement of the status quo though is down to how the facilitator problematises the narrative to allow for an authentic engagement with the generative themes that arise. A word of warning - it is very easy to deceive oneself that recognising the potential for critical engagement in a workshop is evidence that it actually took place - a good example of The Fine Art Seagull fallacy!
Ultimately then, what you are describing is probably best articulated as 'Narrative-led pedagogy' or simply 'Story based learning'. I'm tempted to suggest 'Quest-based learning' though I think that might give too much of a Dungeons & Dragons vibe. But, who knows, perhaps that is just what you're after!
It would be interesting to hear how everyone else describes what makes their drama/theatre distinctive. Why not let us know in a comment below.
To cite this article:
Burns, B (2025) Conundrum Corner: Am I just trying to sound fancy?. The Philosophical Theatre Facilitator: www.philosophicaltheatrefacilitator.substack.com
© Brendon Burns 2025
Sources:
Freire, P., Macedo, D.P. and Shor, I., 2018. Pedagogy of the oppressed. 50th anniversary edition ed. Translated by M.B. Ramos New York: Bloomsbury Academic.
Though this in itself is not without problems. See my newsletter - The Issue with Issues
Freire, P., Macedo, D.P. and Shor, I., 2018. Pedagogy of the oppressed. 50th anniversary edition ed. Translated by M.B. Ramos New York: Bloomsbury Academic.
Itself a different context in almost every way possible to the Culture Circles Freire is referring to in his early work
Re-making the Hollywood/Broadway narrative rather than questioning the assumptions it is based on.
Compare these role tasks to that of a Soldier whose task is to obey, attack, defend. See Scout Mindset