The following section attempts to indicate which theoretical
positions can be said to inform the study. Although it is acknowledged
that the choice of a theory is in some senses analogous to adopting a political stance, the selection must be compatible with the basic task of bringing order to the data and offer prlma facie promise of doing so. Also the accumulated evidence of the later case studies must be capable of chastening the theory, although it will tend to do so by success or failure at exhuming the mechanisms involved.
1 West Midlands Advisory Council for Further Education, Directory of
Institutions and courses in Higher and Further Education, W.M.R.A.C., Birmingham, 1985-66, pp. 15-167
35 -
a) Theories of Social and Cultural Analysis
The first theoretical orientation required, given the nature of the problem we have ohosen to investigate, is towards the analysis of
cultural phenomena per s e . There are a number of theories which may
assist in our task of interpreting the role of Drama in Education in
general, and in Further Education in particular. It seems useful to draw
upon two major perspectives that offer promise of facilitating a cultural analysis of Further Education, those associated with phenomenological and neo-Marxist theoretical positions, which are in some important respects
not necessarily opposed. In parallel they offer a potential basis for
seeking to understand the sources and outcomes of the ironies,
ambiguities and tensions that were noted with respect to Drama's role in Further Education.
The first framework offering a prima facie interpretive usefulness is phenomenology, since the social setting of the research is
characterized by conflicting definitions or perceptions, held by the
various actors, as to what is at stake. Phenomenological perspectives
treat whatever social 'meanings' are attributed to social events and circumstances as more persuasive data than apparent 'hard-wire' social
•truths' purporting to chart actual 'out-there' roles and relationships. Whether or not Drama has a 'true' describable role in Further Education, various attributed meanings concerning how its role is perceived can be
collected and compared. Minimally these phenomenological accounts are
likely to generate valuable Insights into any inconsistencies in the
perceptions of the role of Drama. As indicated in the seminal work by
36 -
w a y s, 1 and the social position of the various actors in any situation
will to some extent determine what they are 'likely to see'. A
phenomenological approach would be particularly useful if it could be assumed that the milieu of Further Education is liberal and pluralistic, since such an environment, by definition holding several ideological positions in suspension, will tend to be opaque, offering participants a choice of interpretations from which individuals make their own
selection. Such an orientation would also go some way towards offering a
valid explanation of how Drama 3eems to perform different roles at
different times - or even simultaneously. In short, the ironies,
ambiguities and tensions associated with the role of Drama in Further Education may, seen from a phenomenological perspective, rest upon a liberal view of the Further Education sector as a natural arena for tolerant compromise, able to assimilate differing perceptions without intolerable conflict.
The alternative perspective is a neo-Marxist one, which is
attractive for several reasons, not least because it introduces powerful explanatory ideas from cultural reproduction theory and hegemony theory. Unlike the liberal humanist interpretation, which supposes Further Education to carry its differences of emphasis in tolerant suspension, the neo-Marxist account begins with the view that diverse real interests are Involved, themselves class-based and related to modes of production, of a kind that suggest formal contradiction rather than amicable
1 P. Berger and T. Luckmann, The Social Construction of Reality: A
Treatise on the Sociology of Knowledge, Penguin, Harmondsworth,
pp. 152-153, 1971. See also: A. Schütz, 'The Stranger: An Essay in
Social Psychology' in B.R. Cosin, I.R. Dale, G.M. Esland, D.F. Swift, School and Society: A Sociological Reader, Routledge and Kegan Paul in association with The Open University Press, London, 1971, PP* 32-31**
37 -
ambiguity. Yet in many Further Educational settings, if there is indeed
hegemonic control, then it appears to work in the main by consent, matching Grarasci's view that the institutions of ’civil society’ are adept at moulding the convictions o f the proletariat (in thi3 case
teachers and taught) who 'wear their chains willingly’. Although any
’ideological hegemony’ of Further Education is doubtless in this broad sense consensual, there is parallel evidence that institutions are also willing to ’co-erce non-conformists and rebels who come under their
jurisdiction' . 1 Indeed the balance between these forces is the
analytical thrust behind the case studies.
A further problem is that Gramsfi. was himself ambiguous over whether
hegemony could involve coercion as well as consent. Perry Anderson
analyses three separate 'models' o f hegemony that might be inferred from Gramsci's writing, at least the second of which included the 'confusing addition' that hegemony might also include 'physical coercion',
particularly through the la w. 2
The contribution of hegemony theory to an analysis of the place of 'expressive' Drama within the ideology of instrumentally-orientated Further Education can be simply stated. To what extent are the Implicit antagonisms successfully 'hidden from view', reduced to an illusory conflict that is a disguised form of consensus? Indeed are we dealing with hidden antagonisms at all, or educational settings simply
characterized by liberal pluralism? What indications are there that what Gramsci called the 'contradictory consciousness' experienced by the beguiled oppressed under hegemonic conditions resulted in particular
1 Joseph Femia, Gramsci's Political Thought, Clarendon, Oxford, 1981,
p . 28 •
* See Perry Andrson 'The Antinomies of Antonio Gramsci', New Left Review. No. 100, 1976-77, London, pp. 5-78, cited in Robert Bocock, Hegemony, Ellis Horwood/Tavistock Publications, London, 1986, p. 29.
38 -
mixtures of apathy, hostility and consent that occasionally outcropped as
genuine challenge? Our argument will be that some circumstances
o f f e / de-AUlolstruggle^ .TW;» be. met with institutional
coercion treating Drama tutors as deviant. The
predictable consequences were various attempts to marginalise and control Drama with all the ploys recognized by Bourdieu:
Misunderstanding, borrowings removed from their context and reinterpreted, admiration and disdainful aloofness - These are all signs familiar to specialists on the situations that arise when cultures raeet.^
It is also clear that Gramsei's elaboration of hegemony fits the conditions of Further Education as part of 'civil society' better than earlier Marxist accounts of the relations between dominant and
subordinate constituents of culture. Although, as Althusser^ points out,
Gramsci' 3 theory of hegemony did not originally deviate from the Marxist
analysis of class-bound 'oppressive' cultural domination, later versions allowed Gramscl to be heralded as the first Marxist to develop 'the elements of a full political theory within Marxism'.3 in essence Gramsci's concept of hegemony overcame the economic reductionlsm and simplistic catastrophism of traditional Marxism by taking a broader view of the state as the
entire complex of practical and theoretical activities with which the ruling class not only Justifies and maintains its dominance, but manages to win the active consent of those over whom it rules. 123
1 Pierre Bourdieu, 'Systems of Education and Systems of Thought’, in
R. Dale, G. Esland, M. McDonald, Schooling and Capitalism: A Sociological Reader, Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1976, pp. 192-200, p. 198.
2 L. Althusser, 'The Crisis of Marxism' in I. Manifesto, (ed.) Power and
Opposition in Post-Revolutionary Societies, London, Ink Links, 1979, pp. 225-237, p. 235.
3 E. Hobsawm, 'Gramsci and Political Theory', Marxism T o day, July 1977, pp. 205-213, P. 208.
Antonio Gramsci, Selection from the Prison Notebooks. London, Lawrence and Wlshart, 1971, p. 241».
39
The question remains, of course, as to why the incipient challenge
of Drama was not in the event ’profoundly destabilizing' 1 although
potentially antithetical. Indeed Drama at times clearly offered positive
support to the ideological 3tatu3 q u o , although a fine grain analysis of particular situations and motivations would be needed to determine
whether and to what extent the acceptance of the institutions' 'cognitive and evaluative maps' was 'pragmatic'.
By incorporating dissident elements wherever possible through persuasion and other forms of non coercive legitimation, institutions are able to secure their own social control through compliance.
Commonsensically, one would expect some incentives or inducements to be offered to gain 'spontaneous consent ... to the general direction imposed on social life by the dominant ... groups' . 1 2 3 'Perceptible benefits'^
include not only approval, but also the incorporation of practical activities, new aspirations, moral conduct and even admitting new entrants to the dominant group itself.1*
Nevertheless, it is clear that Further Education Colleges are not always able to manage their problems of social control with such affable
apparent generosity. Degrees of consent and conformity vary according to
circumstance and to the exact mix that makes up the 'contradictory consciousnesses’ of the protagonists supporting or recommending Drama. As Feraia points out, these complexities may be difficult to unravel at the margins:
1 Bernard Mlege, (translated by Jonathan Davis), 'The Logics at Work in
the New Cultural Industries', Media Culture and Society, Voi. 9, No. 3, July 1987, pp. 273-29,1, p. 273.
2 Gramsci, 'Gli lntellettua ile l'organizzazione della Cultura', p. 9,
translated and cited in Fetoja, Gramsci's Political Thought, p. 42. 3 Philip Schlesinger, 'Editorial' in Media Culture and Society, Media
Culture and Society, Voi. 10.
11 Femia, Gramsci's Political T h ought, pp. 42-50. See also Miege,
no
The distinctions made ... between different modes of
conformity are analytic and hence easily drawn. 3ut it is
not all that easy in actual circumstances to determine, for example, where compliance originating in voluntary agreement ends and where compliance deriving from constraint begins. On cases that fall near the margins, clear demarcation is
impossible. Different types of conformity flow
imperceptibly into their neighbours, 1
Another facet of our account springs from the insight that Drama is a subject with individualist expressive roots trying to carve a niche for itself in the teeth of the dominant and transparently instrumental order of occupationally-relevant Further Education, and consequently out of
step with its reproductive agenda. . TV\tS expressive cuMr\ou.Aceirwe»\.t
t
>
could be seen as o n e e>J- rv\Aruj ' not dissimilar threats going right back to feudal tlraesc A s Ferv\»cc «Noted Ofrfcssvv«. Content Appeared >*. rvvan.^
<? iu S e 3 *.
^ advancing individualism, expressing itself theologically in
Protestantism, economically in Mercantile capitalism, and politically in the theory of natural rights.*
In this sense, the Arts can be seen as potentially subversive, too, eventually on the basis of their ability to check received wisdom imaginatively against empathetically reconstructed experience.
It is not difficult to see that the neo-Marxist line of argument carries a particular force for Further Education, which with its close relationship to the economic base of society is well placed to reinforce
society's class divisions and inequalities. At stake is the question of
whether Further Education is in any strong and analytically justified sense an alien and unfriendly environment for Drama, and if so whether the emergence of hegemonic consent is sufficient to mask the conflict and struggle. This will determine whether Drama is to be brought a willing or reluctant 'captive within the gates' of a predominantly Instrumental Further Education, or whether it might achieve in some circumstances a
1
U1
subversive role. Neo-Marxist theoretical perspectives also claim a
strong historical orientation, and offer potential assistance to a thesis concerned with exploring how the historical processes surrounding the position of Drama in Education, particularly Further Education, may be demythologized.
There are, however, theoretical and methodological differences
between phenomenological and neo-Marxist approaches. Phenomenological
research collects attributed meanings and explanations, and charts discontinuities in the 'invented* worlds on display, while neo-Marxist accounts are predisposed towards certain kinds of 'grand theory', in particular a settled determination to treat cultural conflict as having
its roots in economic and social conflict. As a starting point it might
be useful to explore further the idea discussed above that there is some
kind of natural antithesis between Drama and Further Education. In an
obvious sense, they perform segregated cultural roles; Drama acts, albeit arguably with the permission of the dominant order, as a channel for
personal, expressive1 realization. In some circumstances this
'permission' appears to be conditional on Drama playing a well-behaved
token role, suppressing its core of potentially subversive elements. But
the citadel of Further Education is a strong one, as the whole basis for its provision is to answer the commands of the dominant order for the instrumental^ needs o f society for a trained or skilled workforce whose actions are designed to fulfil the perceived normative needs of society,
1 In this thesis the terms 'expressive' and 'instrumental' are derived
from Durkhelm's concept of the disparate societal functions which
education performs. See for example, Emile Durkhelm Education and
Sociology, (translated by Sherwood Fox), The Free Press, New York,
1956, pp. 121-126. Particular focus upon expressive and Instrumental
education is evident in Basil Bernstein, H.L. Elvln and R.S. Peters, 'Ritual in Education» in B.R. Cosin, I.R. Dale, C.M. Esland,
D.F. Swift, School and Society: A Sociological Reader, London, R.K.P., In association with the Open University, 1971, PP* 160-165.
42
particularly with regards to providing human spare parts for the prevailing industrial processes.
At first glance it appears that there are indeed few points of genuine overlap between the values and assumptions of Educational Drama and those espoused in Further Education. At a Joint Conference in March 1985, for example, various agencies with interests in Educational Drama
in Further Education met to analyse its role. They concluded, rather
brutally, that Drama was generally perceived as 'expendable': no matter how successful individual pockets are, no significant voice exists for Drama work as a whole, no determination to put sectional interests at a lower priority
than overall growth ... Drama is ... expendable. 1
There is also some evidence that attitudes have recently been
hardening. Following firstly the publication of the MSC's requirements
and latterly the demands of the Training Commission, colleges of Further Education have been made emphatically aware of their strictly
functional role of supporting work-skill based courses, 1 2 whilst Drama is
in direct contrast more readily associated with a questioning, challeng
ing, critical stance. If the primary function of the non-advanced form
of education provided in Further Education is to serve the needs of the dominant groups in society, whether these demands are expressed by religion, politics or economy, then its explicit cultural role is lrreducably instrumental.3 Its clients or students in general 'acquiese
passively'1* in the disinclination to teach knowledge or skills that might
1 Joint Conference, Nottingham, 28 March 1985, 'Positive Images', in
Dramabout, 1985, p. *4.
2 See for example: City of Birmingham Education Department, New Technical
and Vocational Education Initiative: Proposals for Pilot P r oject, Birmingham. 1983 and City of Birmingham Education Department, TVE
Planning Document, Birmingham, July 1 9 8 8.
j) King, p. 156.
43
-enable them to challenge the existing cultural status quo. 1 Yet Drama,
if willing to play a service or subservient role, can actually assist in this system of control by choosing a face that permits the practices of cultural reinforcement outlined by Morton.2 if so, even an expressive subject like Drama may find its place in the curriculum of Further Education limited and constrained to the extent that it is consistently expected to emphasise group solidarity, cultural complacency and the status q u o , rather than promote reflective feeling and individual
expressive capability. With Drama duly tamed, its contribution to the
stability of the instrumental culture might be transmitted through such restricting methodologies as limited-purpose simulations, role plays perceived narrowly as job-rehearsal, the study of theatre as academic
text, and speech 'training'. At this point, it would appear that Drama
has not only consented to the legitimacy of the hegemonic messages but is also actively engaged in furthering them, though its own modified
consciousness. 3
Since Drama seems capable of playing a variety of role3 from the
subversive to the supportive, it would be useful to consider whether different roles tend to be played in different historical conditions. This takes us to a consideration of cultural change, which is of interest from both a neo-Marxist and a phenomenological perspectives
A crisis arises which interrupts the flow of habit and gives
rise to changed conditions of consciousness and practice.1*
This helps to explain why ... there is always asked the uneasy question about what the future has in store^
O.H. Bantock, Education in An Industrial Society, London, Faber and Faber, 1963, p. 224.
David Morton (ed.), Drama For Capability, Oxford, Kemble Press/ National Association of Drama Advisers, 1984, p. 35.
J. Femia, 'Hegemony and Consciousness in the thought of Antonio Gramscl', Political Studies, XXIII, March 1975, pp. 29-48. A. Schütz, 'The Stranger', p. 31.
Karl Mannheim, (Translated by Edward Shils) Ideology and Utopia, Routledge and Kegan Paul, London, p. 229*
One possibility is that, at times of societal transition or flux, the instrumental commands transmitted through Further Education may be diverted or disguised by the flaring up of a rhetoric of 'total man' associated with the notion of a 'liberal' curriculum, which although antithetical to Further Education is part of the rhetorical legacy and
reference orientation of many of its teachers. But even this tendency is
capable of being absorbed by the dominant symbolic order. Drama at times
seems to be deployed as what C. Wright Mills calls a 'status distraction' with the institution using it to bolster up its liberal rhetoric, but as
a 'cloak for actual power' . 1 At other times, like the ebb and flow of a
tide, tough-minded instrumental agendas related to specific job-related
skills may re-surge and be openly espoused. Generalizing across time,
Drama not infrequently finds itself in the cross-fire between
antithetical ideologies within the colleges. Not only can the role of Drama be analysed as exhibiting the dilemmas and confusions of its marginal status, but it may be forced to adjust in the manner of life on the shoreline between high and low tide, surviving differently under different conditions as it is pulled between the waxing and waning