Tratamiento, manejo y procedimiento

Pasifika theatre practitioners aim to change society not only by empowering audiences as discussed above but also through including social issues. Lifting ‘taboo topics’, ‘challenging the audience’ and ‘making problems visible’ are recurring references in the interviews. Thus,

121

'visibility' does not exclude ‘difficult subjects’. In fact, some practitioners prefer an open

discussion of social issues in the media and theatre rather than silence, because discussions may help to overcome problems in society (NAW).

Practitioners reported that social issues and taboos affecting Pasifika society are like weeds; they felt as though they keep uprooting them, but the weeds grow back in no time. Such social issues include ‘issues that would be judged morally wrong’ and what ‘come[s] up in the paper, especially with child abuse, physical and sexual abuse’ (MAI; LEI). Taboos have a normalising function in society, regulating what is socially accepted. The word itself originates from Polynesia and can be linked to Cook’s early investigations, where certain kinds of taboos referred to human sacrifices, others to socially unacceptable acts, such as women being forbidden to eat certain foods (Barnard & Spencer, 2002, p. 814). The word is similar to the Maori ‘tapu’ relating to the traditional Māori spiritual and social code. The word’s meaning then changed in English. In anthropological works, James Frazer, Brond, and many other social anthropologists used the term when referring to any strong ritual prohibition. Outside the field of social anthropology, 'taboo' has a broader meaning, generally referring to socially

unacceptable notions that are kept invisible from the public sphere. Therefore, to ‘break taboos’ is to work against the status quo in society. In line with this definition, most Pasifika theatre practitioners I interviewed believe that breaking taboos can inspire social change.

It is not surprising then, that most practitioners I interviewed argued that social issues should be included in theatre. However, their motivations for this varied. A number of practitioners noted that they incorporated stories for personal reasons. In addition, practitioners who sought to engender social change cited a sense of social responsibility. They saw theatre as a megaphone which confronts the audience, thinking ‘here, it is on stage, we cannot escape, we all know it is happening so let us put an end to it’ (LEI). Confronting taboos allowed the silence to be broken, because ‘if people are quiet about issues like that, they just sort of continue‘(LEI). Thus, theatre makers took up the responsibility to break the silence. Maiava reasoned that social issues should be discussed in theatre because ‘we don’t know all the stories that happened to all our sisters and aunties because it is a male dominated patriarchal life and society’ (MAI). Interestingly, gender was rarely mentioned in the interviews, but when it came up, it related to social responsibility. Maiava’s statement, somewhat contradicting its goal to shed light to the wrongdoings of patriarchal society, echoes the traditionally protective role of a patriarchal

122

society. Furthermore, many of the practitioners I interviewed were motivated by a broader human responsibility to discuss the mistreatment of children (AVI). While motivations varied, and I would not want to engage in generalisations, all but one practitioner I interviewed emphasised that Pasifika theatre should be, and indeed is, a source of social change.

Silent actors

In stark contrast to practitioners’ self-positioning as promoters of social change, other institutions such as church, media, and government are seen as passive or unsuccessful in changing taboos. According to the 2006 Census, 8 in 10 Pasifika people consider themselves religious, and the most common denominations among Pasifika people are, in decreasing order, Presbyterian (Congregational and Reformed), Catholic, and Methodist. While Pasifika people from a Samoan, Fijian and Tokelauan background are predominantly Catholic, those with Cook Island Maori, Niuean and Tuvalu Islander ancestry were mainly Presbyterian. For Pasifika people of Tongan ethnicity, the most common religious denomination was Methodist. The fifth most common religion was that of the Latter Day Saints (Statistics New Zealand, 2006 Census). While there are significant differences based on ethnicity, none of the participants in this study specified what they meant by ‘the church’. Instead of specific denominations, they emphasised the presence of an institutionalised structure which was part of traditional Pasifika life.

The church is considered a powerful institution and is described as a significant part of Pasifika people’s everyday life. Nevertheless, especially early Pasifika plays portrayed it in a negative manner. Ministers, in plays like Romeo and Tusi and Fresh off the Boat, just want money, ‘drive Porsches’, and rarely share their insights with the community; instead they manipulate and preach (KIG). In fact, according to the practitioners I interviewed, the church does not do enough with social issues, and is part of an apparatus that keeps social issues seemingly

invisible. Leilua argued that people are often well aware of sexual abuse within the community, and she criticised ministers for not intervening: ‘so and so with the niece – and nobody talks about it at church’ (LEI). In this view, the church evidently takes a stance by staying silent and not using its power. However, while this position is often unnoticed by the community at large, practitioners maintain that they notice shortcomings and highlight the ‘crooked’ ministers and the silent church.

Unlike the church, the media is thought to cover some social issues, but the practitioners I interviewed emphasised that communities do not internalise its messages and as a result there

123

is no change. Some practitioners, especially Leilua, Manusaute, Kightley, Avia, and Maiava, argued that for change to happen, it is not enough to break the silence on air; it is essential to acknowledge problems in the community and set transformation in motion. With emphasis on social transformation as a bottom-up process, it is not surprising that theatre which operates within communities is seen as successful in lifting taboos. It is interesting to note that while the church and media are criticised, other institutions, such as the government, international and national organisations, are virtually unmentioned in the interviews. Nevertheless, they are the biggest investors in social development, both in terms of research and financial investment. But if we accept that theatre makers see transformation as a grassroots process, the invisibility of agents like the government implies they have less impact. Their invisibility further shifts the responsibility to theatre makers, who magnify their own role in changing society through theatre by criticising media and other institutions for being ineffective.

While practitioners dismissed media and other institutions because of their outsider status in Pasifika communities, they attributed their own success to their dual position, that is being both insiders and outsiders, in their community. Polataiavo saw her television work as an extension of her insider image in the community and theatre. She ascribed her success in achieving change to being an insider, and she argued that even ‘when people see me on screen, everyone sees me as a part of their wider Pacific community’ (POL). Thus, attachment between members of the community and the actress was thought to lead to increased attendance. Polataiavo also proposed that audience members were more likely to internalise underlying messages in performances, or even commercials due to her insider status. The connection, however, is loosely defined, and examples in the interviews ranged from a symbolic connection within the Pasifika community to connections within the family. Practitioners believed that their insider status, often based on symbolic belonging to Pasifika communities, made them heard. However, they were aware that at the same time, they are outsiders and see larger trends and social issues, because of their position as artists. Perhaps even more importantly, they communicate through theatre, which functions as a megaphone, so their voices can be heard.

The curious case of the mirror: portraying social issues

A question asked at the beginning of this chapter was whether Pasifika theatre is a mirror or a hammer. One possible answer lies in the idea that in Pasifika theatre, portraying social issues is more important than providing solutions. In Fresh off the Boat, The Naked Samoans’

124

productions, and Avia’s work, violence, failure, suicide, and displacement are explored. Yet, the focus of works is on revealing social issues; providing solutions and alternatives is secondary. Revelation itself is like showing a mirror to society. Nevertheless, the aim of such mirror images is to change society, argued practitioners, indicating the social themes in plays.

Before we move on to discuss how practitioners construct such mirror images, it may be interesting to note that Pasifika theatre is both elitist and democratic. The elitist element lies in the role of theatre makers in selecting and naming the problems: communities, except in the case of Statement Theatre, are excluded from the selection process. Pasifika theatre is, however, democratic in the sense that audience members and practitioners participate in the theatre space and thus theatre becomes a form of ‘collective unloading, so that we, as society, can just move on’ (KIG). The ‘collective unloading’ and the aim to raise awareness of social issues in Pasifika theatre are social and strikingly democratic.

It is thus unexpected that many practitioners name Brecht as one of their main influences,44 and I argue that such references are symbolic statements designed to emphasise the social role of Pasifika theatre. The reference to Brecht is interesting because he is one of the only Western practitionersmentioned in the interviews, apart from the writers and plays that practitioners had previously worked on. Manusaute, among others, acknowledged that Brecht ’has a lot of effect on my work now’ (MAN). Brecht’s theatre however is dissimilar to Pasifika theatre in most aspects. Brecht’s theatre was social and democratic in the sense that he condemned bourgeois entertainment and aimed to dispose of the fourth wall and emotional identification. However, his theatre had undeniably elitist elements not only because the audience was to experience the author's ‘totalising statements’, but also because in Brecht’s time the alienation effect and expected cognitive responses to a piece presupposed a relatively educated and liberal audience (Lunn, 1982, p. 126). The very basis of alienation is foreign to Pasifika theatre whose audiences are far from Brecht’s liberal audience. It is essential for us to grasp Brecht’s role in education in order to understand why practitioners refer to him. As part of the Western canon of theatre

44 _{Practitioners frequently argued that they are influenced by fale’aitu (see Chapter 6), and in}

125

history, his work is taught extensively in drama school, workshops, and in high school curricula. Brecht’s name is primarily associated with his social agenda, not his methods. Despite the methodological differences which set Pasifika theatre apart from Brechtian theatre, Pasifika practitioners repeatedly cite his name as a symbol of socially engaged theatre – thus emphasising their own goal of fostering social change through theatre.

Deconstructing stereotypes

While practitioners talked about changing society through theatre primarily in generalisations, their attempts to re-sketch images of Pasifika people in plays are apparent. I propose four distinct ways in which Pasifika theatre deconstructs ‘Pasifika stereotypes’ such as bronze-skin beauties in grass skirts, FOBs45, and undereducated immigrants involved in crime. Firstly, Pasifika plays include background stories that facilitate identification with the character to challenge stereotypes. In Fresh off the Boat, Charlie’s alcoholism and disillusionment are explained through his story of migration and subsequent difficulty in settling into the new society. In The Songmaker’s Chair, the daughter’s troubled life is partly a result of having to hide her pregnancy to protect the family’s reputation. Secondly, in some plays, Pasifika theatre challenges

stereotypes with counter-narratives. One example is the parents' migration story in The Songmaker’s Chair. They were educated teachers in Samoa, but left in search of adventure. Their narrative counters and replaces the stereotypical story of unskilled migrants coming in search of work and a better future for their children.

In addition, plays often introduce unexpected characters, such as Joe, the middle-class gay actor in Rantestratum. Fourthly, the juxtaposition of the lesbian and ‘more traditional’ sisters in Frangipani Perfume highlights the diversity of Pasifika women and at the same time presents a non-conforming character to deconstruct Pasifika women’s stereotypes. Yet, Unasa explained that the character of the homosexual woman from a conservative family in Tautala is in fact another stereotype negating the original stereotypes. Stereotypes thus exist on different levels in Pasifika plays. Frangipani Perfume starts with the ‘sensuous image of the Three Dusky Maidens’, who ‘begin a dance of sleepy sensual beauty’, but the scene abruptly switches to three women cleaning toilets (Urale & Fuemana, 2004p. 4). By rewriting the colonial stereotype

45

126

with the stereotype of Pasifika women, Urale dismisses the Dusky maidens and sets out to deconstruct the stereotypes of Pasifika women caught up in menial tasks.