{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.015175300889586603, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.5479452054794525, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Beyond imitation and representation: extended comprehension of mimesis in drama education

In order to understand the complexity of mimesis and dramatic playing, and to perhaps acknowledge a great variety of play forms and modes in theatre art and drama education, one may look beyond hegemonic and highly restricted understandings of mimesis in arts and society. This article will suggest different models of mimesis that provide possible links between corresponding epistemological views. The article argues that different understandings of mimesis follow the way we position and value the subject, the object and the symbolic medium differently. The first model of imitation indicates a hierarchical power relation, where the mimetic act refers to external objectives other than the meaning expressed in the mimetic act itself. The second model of refined representation maintains the hierarchical relationship by sophisticated means, adding a representational medium. A third model of mimesis as framing underlines a powerful symbolic medium or aesthetic peculiarity, whereas as the model of creative interaction intends to avoid hierarchical relationships and seeks to keep an open process of interaction between subject, object and medium. The last speculative model of ‘masochism’ illustrates the case when the relation between a subject, an object and the medium collapses, as for example seen in late modern autobiographical performances. By presenting these models, the intention has been to indicate a framework for drama education that may rearrange divisions between practice and theory. Apart from the different models of mimetic practices, the article ends by asserting the important difference between practice that is mimetic, and practice where there is no mimesis. In other words, all forms of mimetic practice make a difference, and countering what could be named ‘anaesthetic indifference’.