PARTICIPATORY THEA AND ROEE (2)


(BEING CONTINUED FROM 30/05/2015)

ETHICAL FRAMEWORKS – CONVERGENCE AND COMPLEXITY
When it comes to outlining what applied ethical frameworks might be relevant to Participatory Theatre, there  is convergence and complexity.
The International Federation of Arts Councils and Culture Agencies’ report ‘Ethics in Cultural policy’ expresses  itself in human rights language, with an emphasis on the civic:
Cultural policy we understood in the way Jarmo Malkavaara defines it as an entity of measures by  which different operators in society consciously seek to influence, and (be influenced by), cultural  activities in society. Ethical choices are not black‐and‐white right‐or‐wrong setups but can, in different  situations, be justified by different means and aim at different effect. In cultural policy the important  thing is to make choices consciously and transparently after a keen scrutiny of ethical consequences.

IFACCA define three ethical lenses through which cultural policy can be evaluated: virtue, responsibility and  benefit. Underpinning these is the notion of Fair Culture, rooted in human rights principles.
In contrast, Rustom Bharucha’s has provocatively proposed a Genet‐inspired commitment to a betrayal of the civic:

I think betrayal can seem perverse, but if one sees in it the possibilities of a certain rigor in not  succumbing to bourgeois morality and feel‐good liberal, even ‘radical’ sentiments, it can serve as a robust corrective to political correctness and the illusions of good citizenship. To what extent am I prepared to endorse the ethics of illegality in order to activate the process of social and political change beyond the boundaries of theatre practice? This, indeed, is my ethical dilemma. Not so much in ‘crossing the line’ of unethical action, but in not crossing the line with the necessary combination of  political rigor, cunning and audacity. Rustom Bharucha. 3
An approach which is in clear conflict with more sedate notions of ‘good practice’, and the observation of Health and Safety regulations!
Stella Barnes has developed a set of ethical principles which underpin the participatory theatre work of the  Oval House, London:

• Choice: participants’ agenda not pre‐empted.
• Respect: developed via creative process, modelled by Fs.
• Equality: with groups having little experience, through creative process.
• Safety: focus on present/future, no requirement to disclose.
• Tutor competence: support and training, shared perspectives.

(Stella Barnes: Drawing a Line: a discussion of ethics in participatory arts by young refugees, 2008) She describes a process whereby ethics are embodied and developed in the creative process; where sensitivity  to personal and creative risk, and mutual respect, inform the work; where the group is viewed as collaborators  and not participants; and where reflexivity and critical thinking are at the heart of the process. An approach
which echoes, and expands on, the ‘certain rigour’ of Bharucha’s text.
The concept of Competence is a crucial anchoring for ethical practice: without this, the complexity of  Bharucha’s position, the pitfalls and strengths of the ITACCA proposal, and the densely textured implications of  the Oval House principles would be impossible to deconstruct and grasp in practice. We can see in these three  positions the long‐standing partisan politics of PT in an apparent stand‐off with the civic. The third position
opens up a passage between the first two, responding to the concept of the civic, without pre‐empting the  right of participants to reflect critically.
Bharucha recognizes that global power/class relations frequently override stated civic and human rights ethics.
IFACCA classifies and proposes an ethical frame based upon a projected universal liberal human rights Framework, in order to avoid unfairness. Both Bharucha and Barnes are clear that these very human rights  principles are frequently overridden both in civil and other societies: though it has to be said that the civic has  to exist in order to be betrayed.
Convergences on ethics are many and contradictory. While there is a widespread conviction that the reflexive creativity achievable through theatre practice is capable of generating aesthetically powerful, socially  transforming art, Bharucha’s caveats are a necessary brake on assumptions about the ’efficacy’ or implicit ethical goodness of PT forms of work:
If I had to get beyond the euphoria of the moment, I would have to acknowledge how difficult it is to  activate these truths in collaboration with political agencies. Perhaps, the greatest lesson that I’ve  learned from my interactions with oppressed communities has to do with the ethics of illegality.
He continues:
(A form of) radical performance, or anti‐performance, or non‐performance, which could highlight the  beginnings of new and more complicated ways of representing and problematising ethics, where  there is no clear‐cut distinction between ‘good’ and ‘evil’. Rather, we are all implicated in the very crimes that we condemn, either through complicities of silence, indifference or apathy. For  performance to be truly radical, it can no longer afford to fall back on the earlier assumptions of an  artist’s innate, if iconoclastic, goodness 
The assembling of an ethical framework, or landscape for the teaching and learning of PT would help to  produce a generation of reflexive practitioners with the confidence and vocational as well as academic skills to  steer the work in an ethical direction. Reflexive practice introduced into theatre education would not only  have the potential for transforming students but staff as well.

2. AIMS, METHODOLOGY AND SUMMARY OF OUTCOMES
AIM: To research and develop a set of ethical guidelines for practice in participatory theatre for use in  Higher Education by teachers, researchers and students.
METHODOLOGY: The work was within an Action Research framework in which participants were  invited to reflect on their approach to ethics. The research was collaborative and included two levels of  exploration:
LEVEL ONE: DATA GATHERING.
Interviews and workshops with:
• HE Lecturers and students: to identify concerns and issues derived from curriculum
planning, teaching and learning and students’ practice
• Practitioners

 

LEVEL TWO:
• Review of findings with collaborators to reflect on the material from the interviews and
workshops and to extrapolate principles underpinning the projected ethical guidelines

image

image

image

Literature Review
The Literature Review offers: an historical context to the practice of participatory theatre in that it describes its  origins and its provenance; it provides a critical interrogation of the practice by raising questions and  provoking discussion, (as well as in the longer term we hope it will actually give a theoretical underpinning to  practice); and it adds a depth to the practice by offering the scholar/ student/ practitioner points of reference    to explore further in the work of the practitioners described, which will enrich and enhance their engagement  with the practice itself. The literature review can be found in Appendix 1.
THE WORKSHOPS.
The workshops aimed:
• to explore existing notions amongst participants of what ethics might mean to them
• to find out what structures might have been adopted individually and institutionally to assert ethical practice
• to explore the relationship between notions and structures in the context of relations between  practitioners, between practitioners and participants and between practitioners and commissioners of  work
• to explore the potential for an assertive, principled, ethical framework as opposed to a code, capable of  enhancing creativity while supporting practitioners, participants and institutions
The workshop was a flow model, designed to find out how the processes of theatre practice might interact  with ethical principles. The workshop structure and exercises can be found in Appendix 2.

 

(TO BE CONTINUED)

FRANCES RIFKIN  / 2010

 

NOTES

2 www.ifacca.org/topic/ethics‐in‐cultural‐policy

3 Performance Paradigm February 2007, reprinted by Vrede vanUutrecht

 

SOURCE  HIGHER EDUCATION ACADEMY,PALATINE

About sooteris kyritsis

Job title: (f)PHELLOW OF SOPHIA Profession: RESEARCHER Company: ANTHROOPISMOS Favorite quote: "ITS TIME FOR KOSMOPOLITANS(=HELLINES) TO FLY IN SPACE." Interested in: Activity Partners, Friends Fashion: Classic Humor: Friendly Places lived: EN THE HIGHLANDS OF KOSMOS THROUGH THE DARKNESS OF AMENTHE
This entry was posted in θεα-τ-ρο=THEA-TER and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s