Being as succinct as possible:
The practical proposal we present to you will be summarized in some principles of inclusive artistic processes and first steps that enable the development of a unique expression for a collective that gathers to make theater. From there, it will be up to you. We can only ask you to surprise us with what comes out of it!
We believe that for each group, a specific direction must be traced, otherwise, we risk putting artists back into acting under preconceived forms of expression (and this will result in the same prohibition of artistic expression that we have criticized before).
Therefore, our focus will be educational and will only remain on the recommended first steps to create a common ground that is fertile for the collective creation of theatrical works that incorporate the voices, imagination, and reality of those who participate.
We do not make this proposal uninformed of its practical implications. Quite the contrary. What you will find from here on out comes from fieldwork that we developed throughout the year 2023, which counted on the opinions and directions of the participants, and was shaped accordingly throughout the process. In addition to this, we also relied on the sharing of directions, processes, and practical activities from various pioneering artistic companies in inclusive practice in Europe.
So interpret what we will show you here first as a series of suggestions and advice that will give you a “little push” in the formation of:
A space of human relations that, even if inserted more or less harmoniously into the surrounding system, suggests other possibilities for exchange beyond the current ones. This will foster the creation of free spaces, generate durations with a rhythm contrary to the durations that order everyday life, and will be favorable to a human exchange different from the ‘communication zones’ that are imposed on us[1].
Principles of an inclusive theatrical process
At the end of numerous meetings, seminars, training sessions, and artistic team meetings within the Time To Change project, we culminated with the collective creation of the following defining principles of an inclusive theatrical process:
- We all have our own way of expressing ourselves, and that’s what should count;
- The group helps us to be our best selves;
- We focus on what we express, not on how we express ourselves;
- Theater should be an open window to other possible worlds.
For the drafting and discussion of these principles, a final conversation was held involving all project participants as well as artistic and scientific teams. The guiding question for formulating these principles was – what would we recommend to an inclusive theater group that is just starting out?
Recognizing that someone on the other end might be seeking answers to this very question, we decided, in the following pages, to develop each of these topics while incorporating direct contributions from participants, the artistic team, and pioneering artistic companies in inclusive practice.
1) We all have our own way of expressing ourselves, and that’s what should count
This principle appears first, given the importance it assumed in the project. In the initial meetings and planning sessions of the project, the first concern that came to mind for new artistic teams approaching inclusive practice was to address the need to make the proposed activities accessible to the visual, auditory, motor, and cognitive constraints of the group.
We leave you with a short dialogue:
D1 – Oh my god!
There are so many accessibility elements that I never thought of… I mean, it’s very interesting to know that there are so many things we have to take into consideration when planning a session. But the facilitator can get very stressed when faced with the group.
D2 – Actually, I felt relieved!
Before (during planning), I knew I was going to work with people with Down syndrome. I was nervous. But (when I got to the room) I quickly realized that it’s just an empty term that, in itself, doesn’t say anything.
The question I was debating (when planning the session) about what might or might not be appropriate disappeared. It was easier when I realized that I could narrow perspectives to the reality of the class in front of me.
I saw that they could do much more than I thought. I realized that seeing someone through the social box is limiting.
Inevitably, the first thought that comes to mind when starting theatrical work in an inclusive context, regardless of the realities involved, is how to make a session accessible to participants in all their diversity.
This is more than legitimate and shows the facilitator’s concern for a smooth running of the work with the group. However, we have to consider to what extent it becomes useful to conceive individual adjustments based on generic determinations if, as we have seen above, many of the fears generated by these determinations can be overcome.
Of course, there will be activities more or less recommended for certain groups, and the facilitator should be attentive to this “optimal challenge” relationship. But this does not need to depend on pre-established considerations.
Our recommendation is to establish a dialogue with the group, welcoming the many types of responses (expressive or dialogical) that arise.
We don’t need to bear on our shoulders the burden of constantly thinking about what the group is or is not capable of doing. If a dialogue between the facilitator’s proposals and the participants’ responses is established, we will focus more on the “way” the proposal develops than on its fulfillment in desired terms.
D3 – The biggest problem participants may encounter is not within themselves, but in the people around them.
We don’t see many people with disabilities on stage, and that doesn’t mean they’re not capable; quite the opposite, it’s because people don’t believe they are capable.
There are different ways of being capable!
Ultimately, all groups will be capable of doing what is proposed in a session, but each will have their own way of doing it. We would call these the “singularities of expression” of each participant. These will be the main clues for the path the facilitator is tracing – the development of each participant’s expressive singularities.
D2 – (As facilitators) we have to be somewhat agnostic about language…
We all have our own way of acting and expressing. Particularly in speech, we each have our own tone and speak with different melodies and rhythms.
It happens that, just like on stage, in our everyday lives there are speech models taken “more seriously”. This creates a cultural division between those who adhere more closely to the model and those who do not, and is reflected in the predisposition to listen to and give credibility to certain discourses and the people who speak them.
As we mentioned earlier – We start from a theater that recognizes the reality of its actors even if the society around them does not.
In practice, this implies the sensitivity of the facilitator (and the group) in perceiving the singularities of expression of each participant, including in the act and manner of speaking.
Despite this, for the desired sensitivity to go “against the grain” of social standards, one cannot expect it to arise “naturally” as the sessions progress. Everything we hear is judged as appropriate or inappropriate, deeply influenced by the culture that surrounds us. This judgment does not cease; we do not believe that there is such a thing as “seeing without prejudice”. However, the awareness of the cultural influence on our judgment allows us to see alternatives to the “normal” frameworks of society, and that is what we have to recommend, both to facilitators and participants. By doing so, they are not ceasing to judge, but they are expanding the concept of what they consider appropriate. This process will occur as they develop listening skills for those in front of them.
It will not be unexpected that the effect of developing this listening will also alter the initial expression and behavior of the participants. A participant beginning to express themselves more in line with what they feel, rather than what society expects them to feel, should be welcomed as a sign of progress in a series of sessions.
2) The group helps us to better be who we are
It was something we did where we were more ourselves than now.
We were more ourselves. Us!
It was during the ‘last lesson’.
…It’s getting me emotional…
We talked about trisomy…
Each one gave their opinion.
There are people who don’t like to talk… others to listen. I think it’s a bit of both, but more of talking.
There was one time I spoke. I cried a lot…
It was a gift the director gave me…
It was the character of Nina (from The Seagull, Chekhov)
It was challenging because of the long monologue and challenging because of what it said.
She wanted to be an actress, and the part I liked the most was the ‘now I know’:
…now I know, I realized that in work it doesn’t matter whether you’re on stage or teaching. What’s important is to endure. When I think about my vocation, I’m no longer afraid of life…
In this intervention, made by one of the participants of the project, we see how important it was for her to question on stage the social label by which she was perceived. This issue, common in the collective to which she belonged, had been developed through mutual discovery, made possible through the many rehearsals and discussions among participants.
Through the different opinions, fears, and desires of the group regarding the theme of disability, a place of expression unique to the group was created. This place had such a capacity to communicate what was inside each participant that what they called “theater” became the place where they were understood. In other words, this fictional space, where another possible reality was presented, was indeed a place where participants “became more themselves” than in their daily lives.
This process exemplifies a desirable path in theater sessions as it delves into subjects specific to the participants through sharing and collective exploration.
Thus, whether the participant speaks in their own name or on behalf of others (while interpreting a character), the primary focus will be to address their desires, fears, and opinions, and then to feed them into an exploration conducive to the creation of a “place of expression” (or minor language) common to the group.
We recommend this approach because we believe that all discoveries, even individual ones, deserve to be shared. Since we all have our misfits with a larger language, it is not surprising that many of them are shared and capable of building a place where “we are more ourselves.”.
3) We look at what we express and not at how we express ourselves
P1 – I go blank.
Because I get nervous.
I think about theater…
I think about other things…
Everything mixed together makes me go blank.
P2 – For me, the hardest part is the actions. The physical work.
I have difficulty controlling my emotions:
Happiness is more difficult.
Sadness is easier.
P3 – I like theater. Doing all the plays…
D4– And the text (you don’t have any difficulties)?
P3 – Oh! the text is right there in my backpack.”
As we can see from the interventions we presented earlier, each participant deals with a common problem among all theater artists in different ways: focus. This problem seems to be universal among theater artists, and each one handles their lack of focus differently, whether it’s with “mental blanks,” difficulties in controlling emotions, or with a lighthearted attitude.
Although we dedicate all our methodological attention to developing the expression of each participant, it is important to understand that the focus of the activities is not on how one acts, but rather on a desire to communicate or express something. As a way to address this issue, we should create sessions guided by proposals for activities that seek to explore a theme, subject, or question, rather than perfecting acting techniques.
4) The theater should be an open window to other possible worlds
This phrase that served as the motto for our project was the most repeated throughout the entire book. For that reason, we will try to be very concise in what we aim to recommend here:
- In theory – theater can be much more than an imitation of life outside of it; it can inspire society to see the world in other possible configurations.
- In practice – sessions should promote the search for multiple meanings of the elements surrounding the participants, questioning, through scenic means, what was previously taken as normal, natural, or serious.
Now, let’s ourselves be a bit less “serious” and provide you with other possibilities to interpret this concept with a compilation of contributions from the various companies that helped us in the construction of this manual:
The theater has always evolved at the pace of society, and contemporary theater is the expression of our present time. However, there is still a long way to go, such as breaking certain theatrical aesthetics and giving voice and opportunities to groups like people with disabilities, offering the audience other languages.
Teatre Espai[2]
The immediate relationship established in theater that happens “here and now” and “does not lie” becomes an effective platform for debunking myths and asserting the social (presence) of a group of people in the community.
Theater in a Box [3]
By challenging the conceptions surrounding the involvement of bodies outside socially established standards in artistic creations, (we intend) to transform the perception of the non-normative body on stage and in society.
Cia. Dançando com a Diferença[4]
(We seek) a way to discover another bodily and oral vocabulary present in our bodies but completely unknown to us.
Bandevelugo[5]
(To enhance) artistic creation as spaces for reflection, action, and civic and political participation, fostering processes of individual and collective transformation.
A Pele[6]
What languages do the groups we work with speak? That’s what we want to know.
Palanque[7]
At Terra Amarela, we seek new ways of seeing the world through creation, practice, and cultural and artistic enjoyment.
Terra Amarela[8]
Finally, we leave you with the dialogue that concluded the last project meeting:
D2 – If we place the leadership, or greater agency, in participants “outside the norm,” we will also have responses outside the norm that will make us question what it means to be an actor.
What do you think of this?
E1 – But there’s a problem with this. It’s that at the beginning, the participants are always very shy and confused. Even before we speak, they already put themselves in the space of “those who will learn,” forcing us to put ourselves in the space of “those who will teach.”
Progressively, if we encourage them to take the lead in creating, unexpected things will come out that will blow your mind! You’ll be like, “What!?”
D2 – It’s true. No one was expecting André (fictitious name) to take the lead in improvisation like that. What happened was spectacular, not just his spontaneity, but also the way the whole group adapted and entered his universe.
In a way, to sum up, should we expect the unexpected. Am I right?
[1] From Bourriaud’s designation of “social interstice” (2009, p. 23).
[2] Interview, in the context of the project, with Marina Filba – responsible for the company.
[3] From the Teatro em Caixa document for contributing to the construction of the present book.
[4] From a document by Cia. Dançando com a Diferença for contributing to the construction of this book.
[5] From a document contributing to the construction of this book.
[6] From the manifesto of the company present on the website (https://www.apele.org/pt/manifesto/).
[7] From the document contributing to the construction of the current book.
[8] From the presentation of the company available on the website (https://terraamarela.pt/about/)