Find an internet, newspaper article or blog posting that highlights your awareness of a specific issue of cultural diversity in our community. Cite the article by title and author, state the issue addressed and support your agreement or dissent of the issue in a brief paragraph. Include the link if possible.
intercultural_theatre_today.pdf
Unformatted Attachment Preview
Intercultural Theatre today (2010)
Patrice Pavis (Paris)
What does the term ‘intercultural theatre’
mean today? The question seems paradoxical,
or even provocative, as all kinds of cultural
exchanges regulate our daily life and any
artistic adventure goes back to the most
varied sources and audiences. And indeed, we
have moved a long way from the intercultural
experiences of the 1980s of a Peter Brook or
an Ariane Mnouchkine. Interculturalism, a
fairly new term (1970s) which was once a
contested notion, has become a very common
thing. It might be therefore worthwhile to
examine what this notion refers to and to find
out if it can be of any use to describe today’s
theatre and performance.
I) CRISIS OR NORMALIZATION ?
1) Recent historical landmarks
The fall of the Berlin wall and of communism
in 1989 represents a turning point for
intercultural thinking. It means the questioning, or even the disappearance of the universal principle, as well as of proletarian internationalism, which functioned as the finest jewel
of socialism. It puts an end to an ideology
which maintained by force the different states
of Eastern Europe under its protective wing
(in the Soviet Union or in Yugoslavia).
Intercultural theatre becomes the best suited
formula in a world with no open conflict
between nations or between classes, the best
adapted and available solution to the law of
the international market and to the progressive disappearance of borders and nationstates1. In the last ten years, borders of all
kinds seem to escape any control: since 1989
Forum Modernes Theater, Bd. 25/1 (2010), 5–15.
Gunter Narr Verlag Tübingen
the political and geographical borders are
fluid; after 9/11 terrorism escapes surveillance; since 2008 capitalism itself seems out of
control.
In the 1970s and 1980s, interculturalism
was rather welcomed by all political powers,
right or left, because it seemed willing to
establish a bridge between separate cultures or
ethnic groups which used to ignore or fight
one another. After 9/11, however, a certain
fear of lesser-known cultures sometimes leads
to a suspicion of intercultural performance.
This might be a sign that the metaphor of the
exchange between cultures, between past and
present, no longer functions very well and
that one should at least reconsider its theory.
The theory and practice of intercultural
theatre of the eighties seem to be left behind
by current theatre and performance. As if they
could no longer be thought of in terms of
national or cultural identity. So what happened in these last twenty years, while politicians kept advocating intercultural cooperation?
2) “Theatre as foreign to society”
According to Robert Abirached, theatre has
become foreign to contemporary society (at
least in France): “Until about 1970, the audience was aware of its unity. It was a national
audience. The National Popular Theatre was
the theatre of the nation, a nation whose
objectives, references, collective symbols were
common to all. This culture was common to
the people and the bourgeoisie. This society
exploded, for many reasons: there was an
increasingly brutal differentiation between
6
Patrice Pavis
suburb and city centre, between populations
coming from outside with their own culture
and French and European culture. Instead of
a coherent audience, we had a multiplication
of micro-societies, which created their own
theatre2“.
The intercultural theatre of the last forty
years is a possible answer to the fragmentation of audiences and genres. Indeed, it attempts to broaden the national and political
perspective by approaching “foreign” cultures. These cultures are mixed according to
a central vision, that of a (usually Western)
director.
Interculturalism-one tends to forget italso functions the other way round: whenever
a non-European culture uses European classics, it still maintains its own culture of stage
traditions. So one should also open the debate
to the way all these cultures/nations/theatres
handle European or American authors and
themes, with what presuppositions, intentions, and with what prejudices and prohibitions. Surprisingly, in Europe and everywhere
else, Western intercultural theatre did not
become a new genre which would federate all
other genres, and, paradoxically, it even
transformed itself into a globalized theatre.
lated cultures, bound to nation-states and
geared to large distinct entities. From that
moment on, the intercultural becomes the
general rule, it is no longer controllable or
manageable by nation-states and by intellectuals who claim (in vain) to represent them.
In the same manner of the evolution of the
world population and of the migrations
(according to Appadurai), cultures and TV
viewers are deterritorialized3. Instead of
distinct entities, we now have different “communities of sentiments4 “.
Confronted with this loss of identity, two
opposing reactions are frequent: either a
sudden tough line insisting on identity, a
strained resistance, critical of any change, an
attitude which becomes quickly reactionary or
even racist and which seeks to re-establish at
any cost the national identity; or, on the
contrary, a postmodern casualness, an economic laissez-faire, an acceptance of the
change of times, an ironical rejection of any
resistance and of any theoretical explanation,
and finally an acceptance of the commodification of culture.
3) Crisis of national identity
1) Crisis of political correctness
This deep transformation can be largely
explained by a change of cultural as well as
national identities. With the end of the two
competing political and geographical blocks,
with the domination of a global, supranational economy, the different nations, minorities and identities seem to “reawaken”, they
grasp that no central power can control them
any long. But at the same time, they lose their
economic and symbolic power, since they
now depend on a global economy. The slow,
but inexorable disintegration of the nationstates (at least as far as real power is concerned) confirms the disappearance of iso-
An original sin weighs heavy on intercultural
theatre and this argument is relentlessly used
by the self-declared defenders of the nonEuro-American cultures treated by Western
directors: interculturalism is seen to exploit
shamelessly foreign cultures, to behave like a
colonizer5. We all remember the furious
attacks of Rustom Bharucha against Peter
Brook’s orientalism or against the Western
theorists of the intercultural movement. We
heard repeatedly the same accusations of
colonialism on the part of the West against
these defenceless countries: directors are
accused of plundering themes and styles with
II POLITICAL AND
THEORETICAL CRISIS
Intercultural Theatre today (2010)
no consideration for the true cultural identities of these cultures.
These attacks might have tempered the
artists’ enthusiasm, but they obviously did not
stop an irrepressible move. They might partially explain the relative failure and decline of
this current of contemporary theatre production. And, admittedly, Dennis Kennedy is
right to say that the intercultural movement
was not able to position itself between the
traditional productions of the classics and the
deconstructions (inspired by Derrida). Deconstruction, such as practised by the French
director Antoine Vitez for instance, viewed
cultural and festive theatre performances as
moralizing and naive, only appropriate for a
harmless festival or for an evening gathering
of boy-scouts around a bonfire…
But “times are a changing” (as Bob Dylan
used to say!): mise-en-scène no longer attempts to signify metaphorically a country or
a period through another culture far away in
time and space. It no longer feels the need to
invigorate its domestic theatre with exotic,
more or less aphrodisiac products which so
deeply inspired Antonin Artaud. It no longer
dares to claim, as Mnouchkine did, approvingly but naively, that “theatre is Oriental”.
Whereas artists often have a natural relationship to other cultures, devoid of complexes,
intellectuals and well-meaning spectators are
terrified by the possible faux pas in the representation and appreciation of the Other and
of this other culture.
2) Crisis of theory
The theory of cultural exchanges and of
interculturalism goes through a crisis, because
the model of exchange, of communication
and of translation, and also of “the gift”, in
the anthropological sense, and of sharing, no
longer functions appropriately to describe
these hybrid works. These works no longer
need to define themselves as a confluence of
cultures, as if it were an obvious goal. Indeed,
what would be the point of an intercultural
theory if cultures are already intertwined? The
usual distinction between inter- and intracultural is not always easy to establish. The
distinction between cross-cultural and
intercultural (or transcultural) is useful, but
also purely theoretical: ‘cross’ is supposed to
suggest the mixture, hybridity (as in ‘crossbreeding’), whereas ‘inter’ or ‘trans’ is supposed to refer to the universal similarity, in
the sense of Grotowski, Barba, or Brook.
These three directors, for instance, have
been criticized for their exploration of theatrical universals, which supposedly exist in any
culture. They have been attacked because of
their lack of concrete political or historical
analysis. Brook has been accused of having an
essentialist vision of the human being, which
was reduced to some human link, an essence
perceptible in whatever context. Barba is said
to be searching within the pre-expressive for
supra or even pre-cultural properties, which
are common to all existing forms of performance and dance. This kind of reproach
is not unjustified, but it applies much less
to the more recent productions of Barba,
Mnouchkine or Brook, and of many others.
The example of Peter Brook’s last production, Eleven and Twelve, as we shall see below,
points to the dilemma of intercultural theatre,
to its two temptations: either to present a
universal, or even universalist, vision of the
human being, and bring down the wrath of
the eulogists of cultural difference upon
oneself; or, on the contrary, to insist on the
specific character of each culture, to refuse
any fusion and any synthesis, and consequently to move towards an extreme case of
particularism, which quickly degenerates into
multiculturalism, or even sectarian communitarianism. As Ernesto Laclau has shown,
leftist parties and democratic reflection have
wavered for a long time between these two
positions: “democratic discourse was centred
on equality beyond difference. This is true for
7
8
Patrice Pavis
Rousseau’s notion of “volonté générale”
(general will) as well as for the Jacobinism of
the class which is supposed to bring emancipation according to Marxism. Today, on the
contrary, democracy is bound to the recognition of pluralism and difference. Intercultural
theatre cannot escape such a debate. It cannot
avoid the question of its socio-economic basis
and the political and economic analysis of the
transformations created by globalization.
Before we embark on this analysis, however
we must acknowledge the great diversity of
interculturalism and of the related genres.
3) Transformations of intercultural
experiences
The denomination ‘intercultural theatre’ is
falling out of use. The term ‘intercultural
performance’ would be more suitable to
signal from the outset the opening to very
different ‘cultural performances’.
Intercultural performance can be distinguished from the following genres, of which
it is often a variant or a specialization:
* Multilingual theatre, in such multilingual
zones as Catalonia or Luxemburg, relies on
the bi- or multilingual competence of the
audience in order to constantly change the
language. A comedic performer and stand-up
comedian like Fellag (from Algeria) constantly moves from French to Arabic or
Berber, depending on the cultural allusions or
untranslatable idiomatic expressions or puns.
* Theatre in the original language (as in film)
is often given subtitles, or rather surtitles,
which allows for an original and appropriate
reception, while letting the audience hear the
original text with the albeit restricting option
to read it.
* Syncretic theatre uses textual, musical, and
visual material which it borrows from several
cultures, particularly indigenous cultures
which are thus mixed with European forms,
and often deal with problems of colonialism
or neo-colonialism.
* Postcolonial theatre connects the dramatic
world and writing, for instance of Derek
Walcott or Wole Soyinka, with the language
and the culture of the former colonizer, but
also enriches this language and culture. The
mise-en-scène borrows from performing
techniques of the original culture by confronting them with the more European practices of the former colonizer.
* Creolized theatre and (more often)
creolized poetry look for the encounter, the
difference, the relationship, of writing “in
presence of all languages of the world”
(Edouard Glissant), so as to better fight the
standardizing globalization. They refer above
all to the language, enriched in a Tout-monde
(all-world), which, however chaotic and
unpredictable, is far from multiculturalism.
* Multicultural theatre, in the strict and
political sense of the word, does not exist,
because it would deny the salutary contacts
and exchanges between different cultures. In
the same manner, a communitarist theatre,
which would lock itself in just one culture,
religion or community, would only have an
internal and closed visibility.
* In contrast, a community theatre is working for a local or regional community in the
broad sense of the term, not for a community
sealed within itself.
* Minority theatre is not necessarily
intercultural. It aims at ethnic or linguistic
minorities, without trying or desiring to
isolate itself from the multicultural society in
which it develops. Some playwrights come
from the African-American or African-British
or Asian-American minorities: e.g. in England, Roy Williams with his play Joe Guy
(2007) or in the United States Sung Rno with
w(A)ve.
Intercultural Theatre today (2010)
* Theatre for tourists, which is obviously not
presented as such, exists in countries dependant on tourism and which wish to offer Western tourists an accessible, exotic and presentable image of their native culture6.
* Festival theatre is directed at an international and often expert audience. It seeks to
adapt itself to the fashions and expectations of
the time, to make its culture accessible to an
international audience by all sorts of compromises.
* Cosmopolitan theatre, as it is called in
accordance with the research of Appadurai,
Reinelt7 or Rebellato, tries to differentiate
oneself from a performance which is more
globalized than intercultural. Supposedly, it is
“distinct from the ethics governing globalization.”8
All these categories which have something in
common with the intercultural movement are
often interconnected and the list is open. All
feel the impact of globalization. So does
intercultural performance amount to a globalized theatre?
III FROM INTERCULTURAL
THEATRE TO GLOBALIZED
PERFORMANCE:
RECENT EXAMPLES
If it is true that culture is a reality which
seems to dwindle irremediably before one’s
very eyes, how could intercultural theatre
itself not be in complete and constant mutation or even disintegration? But are we confronted with shows which have become incomprehensible, or with shows which may no
longer be considered politically correct?
Let us put aside cases of extreme commodification: they have been thoroughly
studied by Dan Rebellato in his analysis of
megamusicals (like Cats) and of what he calls
‘McTheatre’. Beginning with three recent
typical cases of globalized interculturalism, let
us examine whether the genre of intercultural
performance has renewed itself and in what
directions it has evolved in the last ten years.
Can we still talk about ‘intercultural performance’, and can it renew itself, in spite of the
socio-economic constraints of globalization ?
1) Historical discrepancy and rewriting:
Michel Vinaver and Oriza Hirata
For the first time in his career, Vinaver allowed another author to adapt, and even
rewrite one of his plays: the Japanese playwright Oriza Hirata adapted Vinaver’s play
Par-dessus bord (Overboard) into a Japanese
context, but the transposition was not purely
linguistic and geographical, from France to
Japan. The shift was from a family-owned
French toilet paper company in the 1960s to
a Japanese multinational producer of toilet
bowls, which has just been bought by a
French company. The comic dimension of the
work is produced not only by the difference
of method between the classical European use
of toilet paper and the Japanese practice of
water and warm air flow. It arises, as in
Vinaver’s original play, from the discrepancy
between the trivial, scatological aspect of
toilet paper and the reality of economic mutations.
Both the socio-economic issue and the
intercultural dimension have been considerably modified. By historicizing Vinaver’s play,
by transposing it to contemporary Japan, the
director Arnaud Meunier invents a new form
of theatre which is at the same time political
and intercultural. The meeting of two writings and styles, a rare occasion in intercultural
experiences, considerably enriches this genre,
which is too often limited to the confrontation of acting styles. The assembling of
themes and dialogues is already accomplished
in the adaptation. There is no more need to
confront and assemble different national
9
10
Patrice Pavis
styles, different performing traditions. What
is more important is the difference of work
culture and ethics. The acting style of the
Japanese actors is Western: they sometimes
speak in French and their French colleagues
try their Japanese. But this does not make a
fusion French-Japanese performance, even if
the director defines his style as ‘fusional’. Not
only is there no cultural fusion, but the point
of the play of Vinaver-Hirata is that there is
no possible synthesis and meeting in the
economic field as well as in the life style and
affectivity. More than the idea of an impossible fusion in this new type of interculturalism,
we can observe the very rare convergence
between a deep economic concern and an
epidermal sensibility to cultural difference,
even if this can only be experienced at the
level of human skin, with or without toilet
paper.
2) Deterritorialization of the ethnoscape:
Robert Lepage’s The Blue Dragon
Robert Lepage’s theatre offers numerous
examples of globalized theatre, not only by its
mode of production, of rehearsal and its
global and international functioning, but
because of its themes. The Blue Dragon, a kind
of continuation, twenty years later, of The
Dragon’s trilogy, offers all the ingredients of
intercultural theatre: it tells the story of Pierre, a Québécois who came to China to study
calligraphy and painting, and of Claire, his
former friend , who visits him and would like
to adopt a Chinese child. Xiao Ling, Pierre’s
new girl-friend, is now expecting Pierre’s
child…
The characters travel between the cultures,
but they do not embody them and they do
not attempt to synthesize them. The rather
stereotypical Chinese cultural elements are
like the projection of their and our imagination. This cultural model, Québécois or
Chinese, has nothing fixed and identity-
bound, and no identifiable local substance; on
the contrary, it has a volatile shape. It seems
to correspond to Appadurai’s definition of
today’s non-substantial, volatile cultural
elements: “Culture thus shifts from being
some sort of inert, local substance to being a
rather more volatile form of difference.”9 This
culture constructs what Appadurai calls an
‘ethnoscape’: “the landscape of per …
Purchase answer to see full
attachment
Recent Comments