CPR has invited some of the most exciting and diverse Wales based and international theatre directors to Aberystwyth for an intensive participatory project that offers a rare opportunity for both experienced and emerging directors to gather and share the methods, approaches and skills of professional directing practice via laboratories and presentations, demonstrations and dialogue.
Bill Hamblett's exploratory session opened up a debate about the ethics of parachuting "experts" into the developing world. The question was raised as to the sustainability of such projects, once the visitng theatre company have left. I particularly wanted to know whether the British Council, who fund such projects, took any further responsibility for it - this questions was left unanswered.
The exercises in the workshop included the Margolese Circle,where each one of us took turns in being the "expert" and the enquirer; a devise for getting discussion going and one which could be used in a myriad of circumstances. Yvonne commented that it reminded her of "The Mantle of the Expert" that Dorothy Heathcote writes about.
I agree with Carmel's comment about the sustainability of such project, but would liek to qualify that by saying that perhaps what we think of as sustainable needs to be redefined. The work that Bill shared with us had to do with community projects with very specific aims - women's voting rights in Tanzania, reforestry in Suda ... - with very specific target groups. So while the British Council may have initiated these projects - quite laudable in itself - the responsibility of sustainability lies on the community. They have to want it and need it and therefore sustain it at their level. We are talking of speficic communities here, not companies. This is best illustrated in Bill's own experience, where the community where the Small World Theatre building is located pitched in to save the company £29000 in painting costs. The community wants it, and therefore finds ways to sustain it. I am very uncertain of development projects which continue the benefactor-recipient relationship indefinitely, because that serves to actually maintain the status quo without the possibility of self reliance and therefore greater dignity.
Another point that struck me about Bill's work, is that it is not about parachuting in at all, but very sensitive to the situation and tensions in the local community where the work will be placed. What he said about feeling a sense of responsibility for working with local people was very important. It's so easy to do something politically and socially provocative with locals and then return to the UK. But then you leave the locals you worked with to face the flak.
I think this is something Small World Theatre takes into account very seriously when engaging with local communities. And perhaps - at heart - it's this attitude that makes a forest out of a desert in Sudan
I would just like to clarify that my earlier comments where more universal and didn't apply solely to the work of Small World Theatre, who do amazing work and whose approach appears to be very democratic. If I was making a criticism, it was more to do with the British Council funding projects that they believe to me worthy and my concern was about whether they took any responsibility for supporting communities to continue with the work started by companies such as Bill's? Communities may have a desire/need for self generated initiatives, but in some parts of the world they may not have the resources to make it happen.
Once again I agree with Carmel. But I do feel that it can survive in some form or the other relevant to the community if they feel they need it. And if the community does not feel and articulate a need for it (in which case a funding body may come in), is it any point keeping a project going with external funding? I am not questioning developmental projects here: but if the community does not feel an engagement, then it becomes necessary to re-examine the mechanics of how that project is being conceived, implemented and maybe even funded. I would welcome more responses from Carmel and others. Thanks.
Bill Hamblett's exploratory session opened up a debate about the ethics of parachuting "experts" into the developing world. The question was raised as to the sustainability of such projects, once the visitng theatre company have left. I particularly wanted to know whether the British Council, who fund such projects, took any further responsibility for it - this questions was left unanswered.
ReplyDeleteThe exercises in the workshop included the Margolese Circle,where each one of us took turns in being the "expert" and the enquirer; a devise for getting discussion going and one which could be used in a myriad of circumstances. Yvonne commented that it reminded her of "The Mantle of the Expert" that Dorothy Heathcote writes about.
I agree with Carmel's comment about the sustainability of such project, but would liek to qualify that by saying that perhaps what we think of as sustainable needs to be redefined. The work that Bill shared with us had to do with community projects with very specific aims - women's voting rights in Tanzania, reforestry in Suda ... - with very specific target groups. So while the British Council may have initiated these projects - quite laudable in itself - the responsibility of sustainability lies on the community. They have to want it and need it and therefore sustain it at their level. We are talking of speficic communities here, not companies. This is best illustrated in Bill's own experience, where the community where the Small World Theatre building is located pitched in to save the company £29000 in painting costs. The community wants it, and therefore finds ways to sustain it. I am very uncertain of development projects which continue the benefactor-recipient relationship indefinitely, because that serves to actually maintain the status quo without the possibility of self reliance and therefore greater dignity.
ReplyDeleteAnother point that struck me about Bill's work, is that it is not about parachuting in at all, but very sensitive to the situation and tensions in the local community where the work will be placed. What he said about feeling a sense of responsibility for working with local people was very important. It's so easy to do something politically and socially provocative with locals and then return to the UK. But then you leave the locals you worked with to face the flak.
I think this is something Small World Theatre takes into account very seriously when engaging with local communities. And perhaps - at heart - it's this attitude that makes a forest out of a desert in Sudan
I would just like to clarify that my earlier comments where more universal and didn't apply solely to the work of Small World Theatre, who do amazing work and whose approach appears to be very democratic. If I was making a criticism, it was more to do with the British Council funding projects that they believe to me worthy and my concern was about whether they took any responsibility for supporting communities to continue with the work started by companies such as Bill's? Communities may have a desire/need for self generated initiatives, but in some parts of the world they may not have the resources to make it happen.
ReplyDeleteOnce again I agree with Carmel. But I do feel that it can survive in some form or the other relevant to the community if they feel they need it. And if the community does not feel and articulate a need for it (in which case a funding body may come in), is it any point keeping a project going with external funding? I am not questioning developmental projects here: but if the community does not feel an engagement, then it becomes necessary to re-examine the mechanics of how that project is being conceived, implemented and maybe even funded.
ReplyDeleteI would welcome more responses from Carmel and others. Thanks.