More Tools for Analyzing "Intercultural" Performance

To continue to set a foundation for our work this semester and give us more ways of approaching some of the performance we'll be examining, we read some chapters from a 1996 collection of essays called The Intercultural Performance Reader. The essays are dense and difficult, and as I read I kept reminding myself that cross-cultural exchange and globalization are very different than they were almost 15 years ago. Still, this collection identifies some interesting problems with regard to defining, understanding and evaluating performance that crosses cultural boundaries; and it offers some useful histories to scholarship about this kind of theater.

The first essay was the introduction to the collection by Patrice Pavis entitled "Towards a Theory of Interculturalism in Theatre." One thing he points out that I find particularly important to keep in mind is that all intercultural exchange is based on an ethics of "Otherness" or "alterity," which we discussed at the beginning of the semester. He also writes, at one point, that "the foreign is only the familiar lying in wait," which I find to be a useful and interesting concept. It raises the question for me, though: if I'm always trying to make things familiar, doesn't that mean I am denying difference or trying to ignore it? Is there a way to accept difference without making everything "like me" or "my own"? I'd like to think that there is, but maybe we can discuss it over the course of the semester ...

Pavis, and others in the collection, use Peter Brook and Ariane Mnouchkine, both European theatre artists, as examples of directors who have Intercultural exchange as a goal in their work. In addition to this work, he identifies a number of different categories that seem to fall under the umbrella of "intercultural exchanges in theatre practice" (1), but first emphasizes the importance of defining "culture." It can involve, he writes, a number of different things:

• semiotics: a system of symbols through which people make meaning
• the specific 'inflections' that mark a group's representations, feelings, and behavior, which can be seen on the bodies of actors or performers
• that which is "artificial" or clearly formal as opposed to "natural"
• a system of techniques, conventions or traditions that are passed down through tradition
• exchanges of power, as in colonial and post-colonial uses of culture to conquer or resist

Pavis then moves on to look at things with which intercultural theatre is often associated:

• gatherings of artists at international festivals (which, he suggests, run the risk of reinforcing superficial understandings of the cultures represented);
• intracultural theatre, which often involves reclaiming and using "old" or lost national performance traditions to understand changes in one's own nation
  
• transcultural, which looks for similarities to discover a kind of universal language of theatre
• ultracultural, which looks to a mythic origin for all theatre, usually attempting some combination of theatrical forms to do so;
• pre- and post- cultural, which seems to mean reaching for a form that happens before people become acculturated, or looking for a de-colonized new form that moves beyond the power struggles implied by culture (he also identifies the term metacultural, which is somehow related to these two, although I find it particularly difficult to understand).

He then identifies a number of different forms this kind of theatre takes:

• a voluntary hybrid of forms that can be traced back to separate regions,
  
• "multicultural" theatre that uses several different languages and performance styles in one piece for the sake of a language of many different cultural backgrounds,
  
• "cultural collage," which uses de-historicized fragments of cultures in an expressedly apolitical, aestheticized way,
• "syncretic" theatre, which reinterprets differing cultural material creating new forms
• post-colonial theatre, which examines a mixture of cultural elements with an indigenous or formerly colonized perspective
• and theatre by pre-colonial cultures who have become "minority" cultures after colonization (such as the Maori in New Zealand).

There are also a number of kinds of interaction between cultures: seduction, misinterpretation, appropriation, etc.

Finally, Pavis suggests that an important series of questions can be asked to assess this kind of work, and these are the things I find most useful in his article.

• First, what are the "foreign" elements? (stories, storytelling styles, dramatic structure, metaphors, etc.?)
• How has the work been prepared? Have the actors trained to do this, for example?
• What form has been chosen for the work? How has culture been represented?

I've summarized this essay in bullet points, here, because I feel like simplifying it may help students think of ways to write here on the blog about what we're doing in class: again, the essay becomes another tool for assessing and creating "world" theatre.

We also read an essay in this collection by Erika Fischer-Lichte, "Interculturalism in Contemporary Theatre," which I will mention more extensively in a future post, but one thing I want to point out about that chapter here: before she talks about Intercultural theatre in the late 20th Century, she points out that drawing on "non-European" forms has a long history for European and American theatre artists seeking to revive their work or to resist the aesthetic or political principles of more popular work of the time: Brecht, for example, drew on Chinese theatre; Artaud was influenced by Balinese theatre; etc. At the same time, Japanese theatre drew on "Western" forms, especially in attempts to modernize. And in both cases there were developments well beyond those earlier encounters with "interculturalism" throughout the twentieth century. I think one of the differences now ... and it's a big one ... is the development of global capitalism and a "world" culture.

Finally, we're moving through a unit on Nigerian, and more specifically Yoruba, theatre and performance. But before we began this, we read an essay by Biodun Jeyifo, who begins the section in this collection about intercultural theatre from a non-European perspective with an essay called "The Reinvention of Theatrical Tradition: Critical Discourses on Interculturalism in the African Theatre." This is another tough one, but very useful in a number of ways. I'm going to outline the discourses he explains in bullet points, as well, again in an attempt to make use of it more easily.

Beginning with a reference to Peter Brook's visit to Africa and pointing out that Brook had in mind when he went preconceptions about the continent, he first discourse Jeyifo identifies is that there is no native dramatic tradition in Africa, or that any traditions are of a "proto-dramatic" or "quasi-theatrical" sort, or that any development of drama in Africa is because of "Western" influence. The gist of this discourse is, essentially, the lack of theatrical tradition in pre-colonial Africa.

The second discourse, which Jeyifo positions as a reaction against this Eurocentric image of Africa, is the "Afrocentric" celebration of African theatre tradition. This conversation includes the introduction of a new set of criteria for defining and assessing theatre, one that is not based on European assumptions. This includes the celebration of orality over written texts as means of transmission, for example. The idea behind this Afrocentric discourse is that the criteria of, say, England when deciding what is and is not dramatic or theatrical is not criteria appropriate to Africa at all. Jeyifo refers to this as a sort of reinvention of theatrical tradition.

The third discourse attempts to get beyond the duality that lies behind the "Western/African" dichotomy and focuses on hybrid expressions. In this conversation, scholars ask questions like "Which African and European sources do we find operative and combined in any given African theatrical expression? What motivates the interaction of the 'foreign' and 'indigenous,' for instance, an escapist nostalgic retreat into neo-traditionalism or a liberating and genuine exploration of the range and diversity of styles?" etc.

I know that these first articles we read were tough, but I hope that they will give us some good questions to ask as we move ahead looking for our own theatrical tools. I think we've already done some productive exploration of the rituals and plays we've examined thus far.

Jeyifo

I found the article a little frustrating this week. There are a couple of reasons for this. I know this is a 500 level course and we are in an academic setting but wow he’s uses a lot of elevated diction and paper to say what he can say in one sentence. The history of Nigeria being a verbal one makes it difficult to pin down actual Nigerian theatrical history. There are both several things to consider about this statement and things that support this statement.
The British Drama League formally decided that there is no indigenous drama in Africa, but failed to give credit for performance based in ritual dance as well as several other examples. The problem that is faced by historians seeking to research Nigerian performance is that Nigerians suffers from three influences on it culture that cannot be ignored.
Jeyifo spoke of several responses in terms of African theatre and what has both influenced and created it. Nigeria was colonized by Britain the colonization of this country led to its culture being transferred to the native population in many ways shapes and forms. This resulted in warping and altering any already existing theatre that existed in Nigeria before the advent of colonial rule. Another thing that must be considered is that even before Britain entered the picture, is that trading brought others into the country and contact with these cultures also could have changed theatre of Nigeria.
I agree whole heartedly with this assessment. It is a historical fact that no matter where white European settlers have gone they have wrought a path of destruction. I like to think of what happened to Nigeria like removing the center card on a house of cards. We did the same thing to Iraq when we removed Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq. The existing tyrannical regimes served a function of keeping other tyrannical elements from each other’s throats. I’m not excusing colonialism but it’s a phenomenon that has continued to persist. America still alters other cultures without even blinking. I had a philosophy professor once say that we didn’t invade Afghanistan to liberate it or even battle the Taliban. We invaded so that we could continue selling them blue jeans and Coca-cola. This is ironically what Al Qaeda was angry about in the first place. But I think he was referring to the relationship Christianity has to capitalism.
I digress however; Jeyifo’s second thesis speaks of a sort of Counter Reformation. He refers to this counter reformation as nothing more than the deliberate result of Nigeria rebelling against the colonial culture it had assimilated. Both this and the previous thesis results in the third thesis. This thesis says that almost all of African drama today is the direct result or derivatives of western drama.
This conclusion however in my opinion doesn’t give much thought to religious drama and dance that is most decidedly African in origin. No matter how much the western world has influenced a culture it cannot be denied that some of the African dance rituals. I know the Yoruba have a very rich culture of music and dance. That is theatre

Interculturism in Contemporary Theatre: Cultural Respect vs. the Aesthetic

This article presented me with something of a dilemma. I’ve always been an ‘art first’ kind of guy. But I found myself on the fence with this one. Fischer begins the article referring to Goethe’s development of intercultural Shakespearean productions in the Weimer Republic. Goethe brought in everything Shakespeare, Racine, Calderon, Corneille, Gozzi, and Goldoni. I will admit was a little perturbed by the alteration of the original texts of Macbeth and Romeo and Juliet. He didn’t do this for the sake of aesthetics however and I think that’s why it bugs me. Goethe edited the plays for the sake of moral standards and the aesthetics of the Weimar Republic. I think this was my biggest problem with it. This is not the only time that the works of Shakespeare have been altered to suit their audience. I’ve heard of production in the 1700’s which altered the ending of Romeo and Juliet so that Juliet wakes up before Romeo drinks the poison. They basically gave it a happy ending.

Then I find myself on the other side of the aisle when I read about the work of Peter Brook and Robert Wilson. Somehow it seemed to me that the incorporation of the local traditions of the area in which you are performing was very respectful. I can understand how someone would find it offensive if they gave no frame of reference to the ideas and traditions in their works. But I would like to make to points of argument to this.

1) To offend is obviously not the artist’s intention. No artist seeks to alienate his audience (well maybe Brecht but he meant this in a much different way). To say that this is intentionally offensive is false. The fault with that conclusion lies with the audience. This brings me to my next point.

2) We as artists cannot worry about offending the audience. Theatre is a subjective art form. It is entirely in the hands of the audience whether a piece of art is offensive. If we were worried about that nothing would ever get done.

The Other: the old and current life of a “White Man”

So I have been very into politics this summer and it has become very apparent to me how xenophobic we are as a nation. We are not open to the ideas of others in this country and it has been a problem since our country first began. We don't like 'the other'. This is ironic considering the founding principles of our constitution.
The article points out a minority group that until now i had not thought of as an 'other' group. Admittedly, I have always had a number of reactions to the disabled. Mostly this reaction is pity or anxiety or even patronization. When I think of a group being an other I always go to a group that I normally don't associate with in daily life. (Well at least before I came to school) Before i left home in idaho i had only met one black man. And gay people were an abomination. I was surrounded by a very large latino population but never spoke to them. What I knew of the other was that they were in America because life in Mexico was inferior. What I knew of African America was what i saw on white TV and that showed a less than desirable lifestyle. I had no concept of a Gay community because gay men only wanted to have sex with you and that was wrong.
I bring all this up for a reason. It has become apparent to me this summer that nothing has changed back in the 'world' I grew up in. I have livedin, thrived in and been protected in my little theatre community for about 10 years now. I take pride in being very xenocentric with my philosophy. (though I'm still not very good at practicing it in life) But recent politics have made me very aware of how mainstream america treats the other. We as white americans think that the ideal is good old fashion 1950's America. We are stuck in that colonial mind set where we the white straight anglo-saxon protestant american is the norm of american life. Meanwhile we forget that the 1950's were only good times for us. I see manifested in laws like Prop 8. I can see it in protests against Muslim Community Centers. I see it in laws that allow for cops to detain you for questioning because of your ethnicity. It's white america desperatly trying to maintain control over those that it has colonized, all the while trying put up a show of tolerance.

Global Theatre and "The Other": Beginning Again

Hello, everyone.

It's been two years since this blog was created for the Tools for a World Theatre class in Spring Semester of 2008. We're starting again with a new group, and are using the same blog we created together last time to discuss some of the same topics.

As you might have noted in the post to which I linked above, this is a required class for MFA actors at the University of Louisville, and our interest is in examining different ways of using the inherently local form of live theatre to engage with various nations, communities and cultures around the world. We study a few of the theatre and performance practices of non-European cultures and people from those cultural traditions in diaspora, discuss the similarities and differences between our own work as theatre artists and the traditions we are examining, and debate the ethics and possibilities of creating performance that explores questions of difference, cultural exchange, colonization and nationality (among many other things). We're interested in learning about different performance traditions and finding possibilities for incorporating some of those traditions into our own work, while being fully aware of the issues raised by our own cultural positions in an increasingly "Global" culture.

We began, as we did last time, by discussing chapters on concepts of "the Other" and Postcolonial Theory. Our goal was to come up with a list of questions we could use to approach some of the plays and performances we'll be looking at over the course of the semester.

A few questions we came up with:

• How do we react when first faced with seeing "Otherness," whether it be based on disability, race, gender, sexuality, etc.? And what mechanisms to we put in place to keep those reactions at bay or curb them? Is there a way theatre or performance can help us grapple with the underlying reasons for our initial reactions in a productive way?
• What value is there in claiming Otherness? How does context change whether one feels like an "insider" or an "outsider"?
• What is the role of story in the theatre and performance of cultures that are not our own? To what degree to differences in form or aesthetics keep us from fully understanding those performances?
• Who can speak for whom in theatre or performance? What are the complications of casting across lines of racial or national difference?
• What are some different dramaturgical or physical tools for "re-writing the canon?"
• Is colonization always a question in "intercultural" theatre, or can openness and respect for others be a goal of this kind of performance?
• What role does capitalism play in the exchange of different theatrical forms between nations throughout history? What role does violence play?
• What are questions of land/bodies/gender in these performances?

And in case you're curious, here's a similar list from this blog two years ago, for the sake of comparison and expanding the list:

• Do we study theatre from other countries or cultures out of an impulse to control or have power over its people? Or do we do so out of a desire for peace, harmony and love? And how do those issues -- power vs. love -- appear in the forms of performance we are studying?
• A related question: who defines "peace," and who does that idea of peace serve? Is conflict between cultures productive and important? How does drama, performance and theatre deal with conflict in productive ways in different cultures?
• How do we discover "sameness" in different cultures without disrespecting their right to difference? Is it possible to look for similarity and understanding without imposing our own perspectives on cultural expressions from other countries? If so, what do we have to do to step outside of our own preconceptions and biases?
• What was the stated intention of the ritual, performance or play initially? How did its meaning or people's perception of it change when the form moved into a different historical or cultural or economic context?
  
• Who is the audience for the performance, and how might that change its meaning?
  
• What is the role of violence in this culture's history? How does violence appear in its cultural expressions? Has violence influenced its ability to create art, theatre or performance freely and publicly, or played a part in the transport of the culture's beliefs and ideas elsewhere in the world?
• What about spirituality/religion? In its original context, is the form spiritual in nature? When and how did that meaning get lost? What happens to a culture's beliefs when they are studied outside of a certain community? Can people who don't share a culture's religious beliefs understand the meaning of ritual or creative expressions that arise from those beliefs?
• A related question: in plays, is spiritual content contained in a different form of performance? Or is secular content explored using a technique or form that was originally associated with religion?
  
• And what about commerce and economics? How has money affected the meaning and understanding of a cultural expression? How has it affected the ability of a community to create art or performance? Who profits from the creation or circulation of a work of art or form of expression? Conversely, are certain forms threatening to someone's economic gain, and who profits from the suppression of those artists or ways of working? (Or: are there certain elements of a form that are retained to make something profitable in commercial contexts, and others that are hidden or suppressed?)
  
• Does the form and content of the performance adopt a certain attitude toward assimilation? Does it resist being understandable by people outside of the community that produced it, or does it invite other people in?
  
• Since we are studying from the perspective of people brought up in The United States, what is "American" culture? And what is the history of people in diaspora and their presence in the United States? As Americans, what is our relationship to the cultures we are studying?
• In what language or languages was the performance originally written/performed? How and why does language seem important in the form?
  
• What do you relate to in other forms of cultural expression? And what seems impossible to understand? How do people deal with complicated, ambivalent responses to other cultures? Is it possible to learn and change one's response -- that is, can we develop empathy or understanding for the things we initially find confusing, disorienting or unappealing? Is there value in attempting to do that?
  
• How do people from other cultures perceive "outsiders"? How do we, as spectators, represent ourselves and our motives to people whose work we are viewing?
• How are our skills/techniques/goals as actors and theatre artists enhanced or challenged by contact with artists from other cultures, and vice versa?

And here are some comments on that post from former students:

"In response to some of Amy's questions, I had some thoughts. To the question, "Can we look for similarities in another culture without imposing our own?" I think not. To say that we're similar to something, we presume that we understand it, which is virtually impossible because, as someone else mentioned, we can't have any experience other than our own, no matter how thoroughly another is described to us. As to how a comparison could be made without imposing our own view, i dont know. Even to examine the differences between cultures, presumptions must be made. I guess if there were equal time spent studying/experiencing two cultures, maybe it could be done fairly. But even then, it seems like whichever culture was experienced first would influence perception of the second."

And also:

"What happens to a culture's beliefs when they are studied outside of a certain community? Can people who don't share a culture's religious beliefs understand the meaning of ritual or creative expressions that arise from those beliefs?

I think to an extent if a culture's beliefs are studied outside of the community they may be changed or not taken seriously, but if you are someone who is really interested in understanding a particular culture, a lot may come out of this experience. Something truthful and meaningful.

I think these cultures have to be very careful who they invite into their communities and cultures to participate in these rituals. I think that could be one of the most offensive things to a culture to not take a ritual serious or not understand what the heck you're doing and taking these experiences for a joke. I also feel like to an extent if I were to participate in a ritual experience I still wouldn't get the same experience that someone from that culture would. I would probably have my own creative expression from what I went through in my life, but I guess that brings up the question of: How do we go about trying to experience these cultural rituals through their eyes, if we can? Is it possible"

I'm sure there are many other questions to add as we go ...

So, here we go! I'm looking forward to an exciting semester of discussing these things. Please feel free to comment or send an email any time and join our conversation!

Is that DeAldon??? Posting on the blog???

Well, I know you guys thought that it would never come, but here it is, two blog posts in a row from yours truly!

This blog is centered around how the issue of representation was in effect in our own backyard this semester. And since this is a CLOSED BLOG...I can bring up the issue of The Adventures of a Black Girl in Search of God. During the rehearsal process, as I'm sure all of you know by now, there were major alterations made to the script. In fact, it was altered to the point that all of the participants in the show got new scripts about 2-3 weeks before opening. In altering the script, how can one be sure that the story that the playwright intended was represented accurately by the production? It brought to mind Peter Brooks and The Mahabarata, and Tadashi Suzuki's productions of Shakespeare and Chekov. They too made changes to their texts and generally made the texts into what they wanted it to be. What was so baffling was the fact that I'm only just now drawing the parallels between the person in charge of the play and the controversial names we've discussed this semester.

It seems that ultimately, as long as the person or persons being represented don't negatively comment against the representer that the message is what the representer says it is. In fact, even if there are negative comments from the person being represented, once the production has been seen by the public, the representation is there for the world to see, whether it is an accurate representation or not.

Therefore, the truth may lie in that which one chooses to represent, and how dedicated one is to fully representing that idea, intention, culture, mindset, etc. Conversely though, there is always more than one way to get to the same place, so the real issue may be discovering what is at the heart of what one chooses to represent, and deciding if that same message can be delivered through a different channel.

6,000 Flags: A Lingering Effect

The presentation of Eric, Janelle and Mary, 6,000 Flags, was to me the most brilliant way to handle such combustible subject matter. I found myself telling the details of their presentation to my family, my lady, and all of my friends. It sticks with me because I've been so well acquainted with racism throughout my life. I know the blazing inferno of blatant hate as well as the glacial chill of those who would rather ignore than listen. Their group embraced the negative stereotypes, turned them on their head, and allowed us to step out of ourselves and into a world that is very real, and very powerful.

It was also interesting to see the entire class react to the nametags that each person was given. It seemed that everyone in the class knew of a persona that was not only appropriate for the name, but moreover for the greater nature of the activity. The class transformed from acting students at a final, to mainly wealthy, greedy, bigots, eager to see their business succeed at any cost (although I guess with acting students I shouldn't be so surprised!). It was an overexaggerated, but clearly pointed satire directed at the very foundations of our society. It was also very brave, because the trouble with satire is, there are always people who are too ignorant to understand the punchline. I was happy to see my classmates play along, because it was clear that they understood what was going on.

The entire activity allowed me to rethink the bigotry within myself and brought about a new determination to erase that negativity from within me. I found myself becoming uncomfortable when the term "wetback" was used for the log ride. Then, I thought about all the names that black people had been called while we were being sold, and the truth of the situation rang all too close to home. This country was built on ridicule, forced labor, and deragatory names. Every new group that has integrated to this country has been labeled negatively by the majority.

I applaud the group for the bravery to put up such a risky show. It was well worth the effort, and it is a presentation that I will personally remember for years to come.