PARTES Y ACCESORIOS DE ESTOS INSTRUMENTOS O APARATOS

Borrowing from the change theory of applied theatre, community-based practice argues that theatre programs can have a profound impact upon a community (Christensen, 2000; Govan et al., 2007; Hoggett & Miller, 2000; Kuppers & Robertson, 2007; Prendergast & Saxton, 2009). In addition, there is extensive literature advocating the need for this

engagement (Hoggett & Miller, 2000; Prentki, 2009a; Thompson & Schechner, 2004), which is perhaps put most succinctly by Mackay (2009) when he states that increasing levels of social isolation, depression, and alienation provide a compelling case for community participation in the arts.

The focus on community offers an opportunity for this form of theatre to examine critical issues relating to that locality, thus operating within significant and meaningful channels. Govan et al. (2007) claim that this has the potential to shape communities and

30

challenge social injustices, a point mirrored by Prendergast and Saxton (2009) when they state that theatre “challenges accepted beliefs and histories and works towards new visions of community action and social change” (pp. 135-136). T. May (2007) also argues that

community-based theatre is not a preamble to social activism, but rather is social action in process. Her reflection (which has echoes of Boal’s [1979] rehearsal for reality) that theatre enables an “impossible future [to be] envisioned” (T. May, 2007, p. 162) is also upheld by Govan et al. (2007) when they note that community begins to navigate the space between what is real and what is possible. Thus an imagining of change (Beswick, 2011; Cahill, 2006, 2010; Donelan, 2002) is mobilised by the participants, creating a world in which ideas and actions can shift from the intangible realm of fiction towards a fixed reality.

Donelan (2002) states that, “the power of drama to provide learning about the

complexity of human behaviour lies in the fact that, although it draws from the socio-cultural world, drama represents rather than replicates reality” (p. 31). As Beswick (2011) writes, “this is where the performative and transformative power of the ‘representational space’ comes into play, allowing the performers to re-imagine and produce a space which is hopeful, and which moves away from the representations imposed on them by others” (p. 432). By using genuine participation, a community can determine its own representation (McDonnell, 2005) and reframe their own narratives (Govan et al., 2007) thus rendering opportunities for empowerment and ownership. Furthermore, Bourdieu (1990) states that acts of representation can affect “the image of one’s position in social space” (p. 134) and Hunter (2008) argues that sites of performance and creative expression can offer a safe space for these acts of representation to occur. It is perhaps therefore the capacity of community-based theatre to engage in aesthetic and narrative representations that enable this practice to engage with a community-building process. Mulligan (2013) also argues that, “representations of

31

community can bring … community into conscious public discourse” (p. 115), thus implying that the representational act of theatre can initiate wider awareness and dialogue and

identifying that the reach of such an action can therefore extend far beyond the original moment of representation. Importantly, however, Donelan, Kelman, and O'Brien (2006) note the need for reality to feature within the theatrical framework, stating that, “it was important for their play to be ‘real’ – to relate to their experiences of the world. The young people approved of the scenes they created that ‘showed reality’” (p. 64). Likewise, Meyer (2015) also states that “it is important that the problems and content portrayed in drama are

recognizable and identifiable for the participants” (p. 173).

By exploring theatrical representations that are linked to both the participants’ reality and an imagined future, community-based theatre not only offers the opportunity for

participants to explore aspects of community, but also opens up a pathway for community participants to examine identity and self. Tully (2004) recognises that shifts in identity can come from participation and the development of citizenship. However, the engagement between theatre and identity moves beyond this as “by playing in the fiction we also engage in identity work” (Cahill, 2006, p. 67). Through engaging in fictional frameworks and aspects of role and character work, participants are able to “imagine themselves differently …

mov[ing] beyond a restricted, socially and culturally defined sense of self” (Donelan, 2002, p. 33). Similarly, Alrutz (2013) states that, “to perform/tell our stories is to refashion existing ideology, identity and truth” (p. 51), thus enabling participants to challenge preconceived ideas about their position within social and political space. Govan et al. (2007) also suggest that participation in drama programs permitted participants to expand their sense of identity and relocate themselves in relation to their communities, whilst Woodland (2013) notes that being able to explore a range of emotions through drama enabled participants to move

32

beyond their typical role. In taking on a character that is different from themselves,

participants are also able to step outside of familiar roles and communicate in different ways (Goodley & Runswick-Cole, 2011). Cahill (2006) states that it is “through ‘doing’ ourselves (and each other) differently in the drama, we get to stretch our identities to encompass new possibilities in being” (p. 67). J. Butler (as cited in Cahill, 2010) also notes that the fictional framework allows us to “imagine ourselves and others otherwise” (p. 167), which in turn “establishes the possibility that things can be done differently” (Cahill, 2010, p. 167).

In inhabiting this space that moves between the real and the representational, community-based theatre embodies the “simultaneous but separate presence of the real and the fictional world” (Cahill, 2010, p. 160). This requires complex interactions (Hughes, Kidd, & McNamara, 2012) and enables the participants to “reproduce their own reality …

simultaneously existing in two autonomous worlds, the real and the reflected” (Christensen, 2000, p. 169). Dunn (2013) argues that “a simultaneous awareness of the dramatic world and the actual one seems to have enhanced the possibilities for creating connections rather than limiting them” (p. 226). This suggests that the capacity of community-based theatre to both reveal and represent the participants’ lives offers a depth to the work that cannot be achieved

by engaging with only one side of the “fiction-reality boundary” (Cahill, 2010, p. 155). As such, community-based theatre can therefore be seen as a way “to investigate rather than to replicate reality” (Nicholson as cited in Cahill, 2010, p. 161).

The coexistence of fictional and real frameworks and the investigation of reality through fictional narratives can also be found within dialogues on storytelling. The role of storytelling is relevant across applied theatre practice, but within community-based theatre “the emphasis is on creating and performing the stories of communities and community members” (Prendergast & Saxton, 2009, p. 135) thus placing “story” and “storytelling” at

33

the centre of this work. However, in this context the concept of storytelling can embody both fictional narratives and autobiographical stories or personal testimonies. Whilst fictional narratives enable distance from the subject matter (Donelan, 2002), Cohen-Cruz (2005) also notes that “personal stories allow for self-representation” (p. 140), offering participants the opportunity to “represent themselves in theatre, to speak about themselves for themselves” (Nelson, 2011, p. 169). The use of personal storytelling and forms of testimony can particularly be found within contexts where participants have previously experienced trauma, with the storytelling process intended to release or purge the pain of the original events. As Thompson, Hughes, and Balfour (2009) state, “for proponents of a trauma diagnosis … a person must transform their traumatic memories into narrative memories through speaking about or talking through their past” (p. 33). In contemporary practice, this storytelling approach can be found in a variety of contexts, but is frequently articulated in terms of work carried out with refugees and asylum seekers (Cox, 2008, 2012; Dennis, 2008; Jeffers, 2008; Wake, 2008).

The literature on storytelling also argues a link to the community-based theatre dialogues about community action and change. As Kuppers (2007) states, “storytelling, sharing language and myth-making are the offerings that allow the horizon of community to appear” (p. 36). T. May (2007) argues that theatre gives rise to the knowledge that comes from lived experience and that this has the potential to transcend other forms of information sharing such as debate and deliberation. Cahill (2014) also reinforces the importance of story when she states that, “we use stories to understand the world. We use stories to try and change the world” (p. 23). The significance and purpose of storytelling within a community- building framework can be understood with the help of de Certeau (as cited in Donelan, 2002) who states, “stories cross borders; they are transnational, transhistorical and

34

transcultural” (p. 28). Kelman (2008) also identifies that the use of story enabled participants to explore values and identity, whilst T. May (2007) notes that stories enable equity within civic discourse. Personal storytelling can also shift into testimony (Cohen-Cruz, 2005) and transform from the personal towards a collective centre (Dennis, 2007). Balfour, Westwood, and Buchanan (2014) also uphold this when they state that the reflective process following personal storytelling “universalises a very specific, personal story – in effect ‘re-story-ing’ this part of their life” (p. 178). Furthermore, Breed (2015) argues that traditional and cultural stories can assist in negotiating contemporary moral, political, and social agendas.

The use of storytelling and performance also provides the community with a voice and a platform where these narratives can be heard (Blight, 2015; Dennis, 2007; Horitz, 2001), an opportunity that can be particularly significant for marginalised or “peripheral” peoples who may not otherwise have a strong voice in society (van Erven, 2001). As Dennis (2007) states, “the place of personal story is often extrapolated as a chance to reclaim voice” (p. 355, emphasis in original). This is particularly significant when you consider that “the denial of voice can be perceived as a denial of one’s identity” and that “to have voice is to have legitimacy and integrity” (d'Estrée, 2006, p. 107). Kelman (2008) also notes that in

terms of developing both meaningful art and research, “the more this process includes the voices of the [participants], the richer the work will be” (p. 94). This positions participants as “informants knowledgeable about their experiences” (Doná, 2007, p. 212), whose voices act as “testimony to lived experience” (McCammon, Saldaña, Hines, & Omasta, 2012, p. 3, emphasis in original). The concept of voice is also a powerful tool for the audience, who experience a “living insight” (Christensen, 2000, p. 176) into the stories and experiences of that community.

35

In focusing on the concept of voice, community-based theatre also inherently enters into an open dialogue “through which information and ideas are shared among the

participants” (Nwadigwe, 2007, p. 66). Within this capacity for dialogue, there is also an acknowledgement that participants are exposed to and engaged with the stories and voices of others. As Collins (2015) states, “dialogue involves an interactive process whereby we make meaning together, foster understanding and recognise that there are many truths” (p. 119). This is significant not only for the process of maintaining an open dialogue, but also in recognising the existence and value of diverse voices and in expanding individual perspectives. The importance of this is recognised by Nelson (2011) who states that “by coming together … students became witness to each other’s lives … and they recognised the significance of that shared understanding” (p. 165). Likewise, Neelands and Nelson (2013) note that “finding empathy with characters and lives that are different is more than the hug of sympathy; it’s a call to action and is essential to healthy polity” (p. 24).

Mayo (2005) recognises that “in the context of globalisation, there has been

increasing interest in learning from the experiences of others” (p. 86); Diprose (2003) argues from a community-development perspective that community must acknowledge difference and reject homogeneity if it is to establish a firm foundation. Community-based theatre literature also recognises this need and identifies areas in which the field acknowledges and responds to this call for diverse voices. Prendergast and Saxton (2009) state that practitioners should seek conspectus over consensus, and Kuppers (2007) references the ability of theatre to approach group and individual knowledge, without cancelling out experience. Govan et al. (2007) add to this literature by suggesting that the reciprocal nature of performance enables participants to negotiate competing narratives. In addition, T. May (2007) reveals her profound experiences of a community-based theatre project, stating that theatre provides a

36

“forum for acknowledging pluralism, for giving voice to stories that represented distinct and discreet knowledge, which, while not shared by all members of a community, nonetheless enriched all members” (p. 162). These arguments provide a critical link to the

acknowledgement and acceptance of difference and place theatre within a community- building framework, based upon genuine communication and diverse experiences.

The above discussion positions community-based theatre not only as a form that recognises the value of difference, but as one which is therefore ideally situated to operate within culturally diverse contexts. The dimensions of community-based theatre that are

outlined in this literature review can be extensively applied to work carried out within culturally diverse communities. However, there is an additional body of literature that suggests

community-based theatre is a particularly significant tool in engaging with specific issues of diversity and intercultural understanding (Blight, 2015; Christensen, 2000; Conquergood, 2007; Donelan, 2002; Fitzpatrick, 2011; Hunter, 2005; van Erven, 2001). Donelan (2002) states that, “racism, human rights and social justice are often directly addressed within drama

programs” and that stereotypes and discriminatory perceptions “can be countered by the humanising impact of dramatic storytelling” (p. 27). Govan et al. (2007) also state that the

narratives that emerge through community-based theatre can reveal and construct social and cultural values, something which is highly significant within a culturally diverse context, particularly one where there are issues such as discrimination and inequality. Van Erven (2001) notes that “community theatre everywhere works at bridging difference” (p. 245), whilst Cohen-Cruz (2006a) also recognises that theatre has a levelling effect in community contexts. Furthermore, research by Fitzpatrick (2011) found that drama provides “a safe space for children to talk about race, and explore and make sense of their own emerging identities, enabl[ing] them to better understand perspectives of diverse racial-ethnic groups” (p. 101).

37

Christensen (2000) adds to this support when she states that the devising process can allow topics and issues about ethnicity and culture to be discussed; she further notes that cross- cultural narratives and performances can exhibit an insight into different lifestyles, values, and traditions. This insight can promote further awareness of diverse cultural practices and provide a tool whereby these dialogues can be opened and people of all cultures can share experiences and create new opportunities together.

In connection to the concepts discussed above and with particular reference to the idea of diverse peoples working alongside each other to discover new perspectives and ideas, the literature also identifies that one of the key outcomes of community-based theatre is the act of bringing people together (Cohen-Cruz, 2006a; Govan et al., 2007; Hadland & Stickley, 2010; Mackay, 2009; McCammon et al., 2012; Neelands & Nelson, 2013; Prentki, 2009a). This can be understood as being because community-based theatre is “a collective activity in a world where the mass of people lead lives of increasing isolation and fragmentation” (Prentki, 2009a, p. 364). McCammon et al. (2012) found that participants gained a “lifelong human awareness” (p. 9) from participating in drama programs, offering individuals skills such as empathy, understanding human motivations, social interaction, and emotional

intelligence. However, most interestingly, participants identified that these skills were mostly gained through working with others rather than learning from the theatrical process.

Nicholson (2002) also states that an atmosphere of trust is often cultivated within drama programs, while Neelands and Nelson (2013) note that community-centred skills of

cooperation, altruism, trust, and empathy were demonstrated throughout both the ensemble building and the playmaking process. Interestingly, Neelands and Nelson also state that the sense of community that existed amongst the drama participants generated a further sense of power and agency, which in turn strengthened the sense of community and its significance to

38

the participants. Within a dialogue that frames community-based theatre as a community- building tool, these findings that theatre holds the capacity to build relationships and bring people together can be seen as an important element of this field. The significance of this is reinforced by Wright (2011) who states that, “agency also exists in relation to others with social bonds being a powerful way of knowing ourselves and attributing meaning” (p. 111). Similarly, V. May (2011) notes that “our sense of self is constructed in a relational process in our interactions with other people” (p. 368), whilst Cahill (2002) also recognises that “the presence of a network of relationships and a sense of connection and reciprocity is recognised as an important determinant of wellbeing” (p. 13). Whilst these points are relevant across all aspects of community-based theatre, there is particular significance here when considering practice that operates within culturally diverse communities.