I must admit, I was a little lost reading this article; searching for its direct points got muddied in the discourses. However, I was interested to hear of Peter Brook's visit to Africa in search of an universal language of theatre. I think that this visit sounds like an incredible "first" experience with true interculturalism, where there are dialogues and workshops with both cultures. However, Jeyifo seems to be very wary of Brook's visit, "Jeyifo does not condemn intercultural options a priori, but he is alert, with good reason, to the dangers of a vision that is blinkered to the inequality of economic relations." Jeyifo recognizes Brook's visit as an open-minded and positive attempt to understand African theatre, but he describes most of Brook's writings as "ambiguous" where most of the understanding of the culture's theatre is based on how it is described as non-Western. I think I understand Jeyifo's points, that Brook's writing on his visit may be good-hearted but could now be interpreted as the white man's description of the "other" or the "indigenous peoples" and may be looked at with a lack of sensitivity.
However, I would like to acknowledge how interculturalism has grown since the last time euro-centric outsiders commented on African theatre. Jeyifo quotes the book The Drama of Black Africa by Graham-White, and entry from 1932: "British Drama League sponsors a conference on Native African Drama and formally decides that there is no indigenous drama." The drama the British saw was not Aristotelian and therefore it could not exist as drama. Whoa. I believe in Brook's mission in search of an universal language of theatre and I don't think that mission should stop. But perhaps Brook wasn't fully equipped with the sensitivity and cultural understanding needed to explore that mission. But I think he (along with Western theatre's attempts) have come a long way since 1932, which makes me wonder if it is possible that some day interculturalim could exist without tension.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Beth you make some very valid points and observations in your blog. Your last statment is one that inspired me to respond. Is it possible for interculturalism to exist in theatre without tension? It makes me ponder what causes the tension in the first place? Does conflict arise when rituals, beliefs and principles are intertwined without respect to the origin? Does it occur when individuals don't take the time to research and explore sensitive subjects before portraying them?
My next question is, "What is the necessity of a universal language?" We can pinpoint attributes that can describe the componets of theatre, but do we need one standard format? Why are we so conditioned to always labeling and defining things? Can we appreciate the differences without creating a melting pot?
My mind is filled with all of these questions. Its not that I have a problem. I however, emphatically believe it is important that the melting pot maintains the flavors and spices of each culture. You should still be able to taste each ingredient when it is poured on the spoon.
Post a Comment