When theatre of the oppressed becomes theatre of the oppressor

This article was downloaded by: [Bibliothèques de l'Université de Montréal]On: 23 June 2015, At: 10:06Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Research in Drama Education: TheJournal of Applied Theatre andPerformancePublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/crde20

When theatre of the oppressedbecomes theatre of the oppressorSonia Hamel aa Sociolology-Anthropology Department, University of Concordia ,Montreal, QC, CanadaPublished online: 19 Nov 2013.

To cite this article: Sonia Hamel (2013) When theatre of the oppressed becomes theatre of theoppressor, Research in Drama Education: The Journal of Applied Theatre and Performance, 18:4,403-416, DOI: 10.1080/13569783.2013.836918

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13569783.2013.836918

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

When theatre of the oppressed becomes theatre of the oppressor

Sonia Hamel*

Sociolology-Anthropology Department, University of Concordia, Montreal, QC, Canada

On 6 February 2008, a deliberative theatre experiment was held at the NationalArchives of Quebec. Inspired by the democratic virtues of public deliberation butpreoccupied with its blind spots, Forum Theatre was used as a deliberativemedium to initiate discussion about the social tensions between the homeless andother dwellers of public space in downtown Montreal. At this event, manyaudience members rejected the depiction of themselves as oppressors in the play.As a result, the perspectives of the oppressed towards their oppressors wereappropriated by the perspectives of the latter towards themselves, therebyreproducing a typical deliberative space in which the hierarchy in the audiencedominated the agenda, while our homeless participants endured in silence.Drawing from Schutzman, Neelands and O’Sullivan, I will argue that what actuallytook place during the event speaks to the uneasy transposition of a third-worldaesthetic of resistance in a first-world individualistic context of identity politics.Following Prentki, I will further argue that this uneasy transposition is exacerbatedby a funding climate predicated on an uncritical colonial model of social inclusion.In this instance, ‘colonialism’ refers to normative understandings of inclusionversus experiences of those who live on the margins.

Setting the stage: the genesis of the project

Montreal’s downtown area, like many other urban centres, has long been a fertileground for conflict. Indeed, the right to the city in this socially mixed neighbourhoodis waged between a considerable student population; affluent residents; touristsattracted by the numerous cultural happenings, as well as by illicit activity in what isreluctantly dubbed the red light district; and urban promoters and planners pushingfor the gentrification of this area, also characterised by a significant proportion ofsingle parent households and welfare recipients. Amidst this typical urban caco-phony, downtown Montreal has been a rallying point for street youth and otherindigent populations for whom the hustle and bustle provides this underclass withsurvival opportunities like squeegeeing and panhandling for instance. They are alsodrawn by community resources and illicit activity, namely, that which surrounds thedrug market that attracts some tourists as well.

The relocation project of one of the more controversial non-profit organisations inthe heart of Sainte-Catherine Street, a main commercial avenue, serves to illustratethe social tensions in this particular area. In the spirit of harms reduction, thisorganisation distributes, among other activities, safe material for intravenous drugusers and inhalable drug users. Its relocation was initially met with such resistance

*Email: [email protected]

RiDE: The Journal of Applied Theatre and Performance, 2013Vol. 18, No. 4, 403–416, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13569783.2013.836918

© 2013 Taylor & Francis

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Bib

lioth

èque

s de

l'U

nive

rsité

de

Mon

tréa

l] a

t 10:

06 2

3 Ju

ne 2

015

from some of the more vocal opponents that a neighbourhood coalition was formedin order to mitigate the tensions between the various stakeholders involved in thisissue. This on-going coalition, which lent itself to our deliberative experience,includes residents, business owners, municipal and community organisation repre-sentatives, a few scholars from several Montreal universities and research groups,healthcare workers, etc. However, when it comes to cohabitation issues – one of themain topics of discussion during the public forums held by this coalition – thehomeless are rarely considered legitimate interlocutors.

While the high concentration of homelessness in this area is a recurring theme,homeless people themselves are seldom seen or heard during these forums. Whenthey do intervene their comments are deemed too emotional and incoherentrendering them voiceless in these town meetings. As such, the homeless are unableto contribute to the socially constructed definitions of urban cohabitation withinwhich rules of engagement between urban dwellers are discussed. As a result, theirpariah status goes unquestioned and is reproduced.

In light of the above considerations, a joint effort between academic research andApplied Theatre practice was initiated to explore Forum Theatre as a dialogicalmedium between a small group of homeless participants and other urban dwellers.This collaborative venture, initiated and funded by the researcher, aimed at restoringthe dignity of our homeless participants by focusing on their narratives of oppressionas visible ‘colonisers’ of public space in the absence of a private space to call theirown. By instigating a public forum grounded first and foremost on theatricalrepresentations of the generally underrepresented life-worlds of our homeless group,I hoped to deconstruct normative conceptions of the public domain as a transitoryspace between home, work and play, a space centred on the city as a consumablegood (Lefebvre 1972). Within this normative framework, visible homelessness is oftencorrelated with delinquent behaviour and poor individual choices, rather than being amanifestation of a delinquent State unable or unwilling to ensure affordable housing.In short, this experience was designed to challenge the traditional discursive practiceof public forums as deliberative spaces, by theatricalising the subjective narratives ofour group of five homeless participants.

A part from initiating this experience, my role as a researcher and a relativelyinformed albeit neophyte of Forum Theatre, was to document this whole processwhile the practitioner, director and artistic director of a downtown participativetheatre company, jokered the workshops and the events.

What follows is a brief account of the process which led to the event, an overviewof the play, and a description of the event which teases out a particularly dominantdiscourse, subsequently analysed in light of my argument.

The process: from the cops at the door to the cops in our heads1

Twenty-two, two-hour weekly workshops (photo of the team in Figure 1) led to thepublic Forum Theatre event on 6 February 2008. This process was punctuated by aForum Theatre event amongst other homeless peers in which we were able tovalidate and/or modify the content of the scenes in light of the audience and Spect-actor reactions and character replacements.

The creative process was largely dominated by the voices of those qualified asoppressors by the group of homeless participants. One of the prominent antagonists

404 S. Hamel

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Bib

lioth

èque

s de

l'U

nive

rsité

de

Mon

tréa

l] a

t 10:

06 2

3 Ju

ne 2

015

identified by our group as quasi unequivocal oppressor was police officers. Thissignificant interlocutor was considered an arch nemesis by our group in the verbalexchanges that took place in the first and second workshops, as well as by thehomeless peers who later viewed the play. Indeed, the latter told stories whereby thepresumed fear of the domiciled citizen towards the unsightly spectacle of humandistress and unpredictable behaviour was used by police officers to justify incessantdisplacement of the homeless from the public domain; stories in which the fewpersonal belongings of the homeless were often confiscated by police officers in theiraltercations with the homeless; comments denouncing the lack of affordable housingand what was considered the unfounded feelings of insecurity as legitimising therecourse to displacement and to incarceration of the homeless, etc. The interventionof one of the rare domiciled Spect-actors present at this preliminary event amongstpeers was eloquent. She replaced one of the street youth characters ordered to‘move along’ by two cops and was confronted to the merciless arm of the lawembodied by the two police officers played by two of our homeless participants.

This illustration of asymmetric power relations between cops and the homeless asan exemplar of the clear divide between the homeless as oppressed and the policeofficers as oppressor lent itself quite well to Boal’s Theatre of the Oppressed model.However, rather than prompting more extensive theatrical explorations of thesenarratives of oppression, the practitioner insisted on hearing the voice of thisimportant antagonist by hot seating a cop character played by one of our youngerhomeless female participants. Interestingly though, contrary to the machiavelic

Figure 1. From left to right: Researcher, professional actor, Serge (Homeless participant),Practitioner, Olivier (Homeless Participant). Bottom left to right: Marie and Carl (HomelessParticipants). All members of the group were not present that day.

Research in Drama Education 405

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Bib

lioth

èque

s de

l'U

nive

rsité

de

Mon

tréa

l] a

t 10:

06 2

3 Ju

ne 2

015

picture stemming from the initial exchanges, this character told the story of aninternally conflicted ‘good cop’, proud of graduating from the police academywithout being brainwashed by police culture, who became a cop to ‘defend thewidow and the orphan’. This enactment illustrated the police officer’s internaloppression when faced with difficult interventions towards marginalised populations:

I’m not always at peace with what is expected of me as a police officer. I mean, it’s notright to kick someone when he’s down. (Marie in her depiction of a cop)

Her characterisation, she claimed, was inspired by a female cop she knew whopersonified the distinction between police officers and Pigs. This characterisationwhich contrasted with the stories told by our group, stories largely echoed by theirpeers, resonated with the practitioner as it echoed the need to better illustrate thefact that ‘an oppressed and oppressor lie within each of us’ regardless of social status.As such, it led him to ponder over antagonistic relations between cops and theindigent as a sort of ‘amusing game’ freely entered into by both parties.Unbeknownst to him though, in doing so, he de facto downplayed narratives whichillustrate feelings of powerlessness, subordination and humiliation experienced bythe group of participants in particular, and by the homeless in general when facedwith cops as these responses demonstrate:

It’s not a game we (homeless) feel like playing.’ (Marie submitted to the hot seat in therole of cop). ‘You don’t feel like playing, you feel like killing! (Carl: a homeless veteran)

What ensued from this second workshop on was the hot seating of almost all theantagonists named by our group: the affluent resident, the tourist, the businessowner and the street worker whose status oscillated between antagonist andprotagonist. All but the homeless themselves were submitted to the hot seat. As aresult, the narratives of oppression described by the group were explored rathersuperficially and timidly throughout the creative process. Consequently, the unevenpower relations informing relational dynamics in public space were lost in thetranslation between the stories initially told by the participants and their less thanconvincing theatrical embodiment.

In this strategic, albeit legitimate effort to illicit reflexivity among our participantsin order to, among other reasons, avoid antagonising audience members whichwould surely undermine dialogue at this upcoming event, this emphasis onantagonistic voices led to disembodied and unconvincing representations of thegroup’s daily experiences in public space. Moreover, the practitioner’s call for morenuanced depictions in the play followed a meeting with the President of theneighbourhood coalition we partnered with for the final event of 6 February 2008. Hehad previewed the play during the preliminary presentation among homeless peers.He admitted to a certain amount of uneasiness regarding the views expressed by theplay: reifying a naïf belief in a mythical harmonious urban landscape, he feared thatthe experience might worsen tensions and deepen the gap between the homelessand others in the downtown area. His apprehensions prompted us to review some ofthe scenes. It was decided then to soften the scenes that involved altercations

406 S. Hamel

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Bib

lioth

èque

s de

l'U

nive

rsité

de

Mon

tréa

l] a

t 10:

06 2

3 Ju

ne 2

015

between police officers and our homeless characters, and this, despite strongobjections expressed by Carl, one of our more militant participant, a seasoned ‘urbancamper’ who, for the last 10 years, has had his squats systematically destroyedby cops:

It’s worse in real life! The cops are worse than what we present in the play!!!’ hecried in a desperate attempt to maintain those scenes as they were initiallypresented.

In another exercise, the participants were asked to describe a best and worstmoment. One participant described two revealing situations: one which illustratedfeelings of rejection by his mother and the other, feelings of oppression in a roominghouse he resided in, both as ‘worst moments’. The climate he described was sooppressive that it would later prompt him to resort to the streets seen by him as lessbrutal and more liveable than this rooming house which he likened to a drug den.Instead of exploring these narratives theatrically, only the second situation waswritten into the play by the professional actor-practitioner. This significant moment ofdisclosure related to painful childhood memories was set aside as it was deemed toopersonal to be explored, thereby dodging the opportunity to bring this particularparticipant to embody his own narrative of pain and rejection as a way to betterunderstand his own feelings of disenfranchisement.

Finally, the emphasis on antagonists undermined our group’s own under-standings of their realities in public space. Furthermore, the superficial exploration oftheir own experiences would hinder their capacity to speak up during the finalevent not to mention that, despite efforts to lighten-up some scenes, members ofthe audience largely invalidated the content of the play as I will subsequentlydemonstrate.

A few words on the play ‘Mains tendues’ (Hands reaching out)

The forty-minute play was divided into nine scenes that illustrate aspects of the dailylives of the homeless: their displacement by police officers who use absurd cityregulation to legitimate their actions; begging as a source of uneasiness or irritation;the approaches of some non-profit organisations which make their ‘users’ feelexploited and used as mascots for potential funders; food line-ups where thehomeless gather (illustrated in Figure 2); pressure from business associations whichcause tension between business dwellers and the homeless; typical squattingstrategies; the brittleness of social bonds amongst the homeless; the drug dealing,which surrounds them and to which they are vulnerable and closely associated; andfinally, their quest for social ties with those neighbourhood residents they havebefriended.

Scenes involving cops and the homeless were transformed into a farcicaldisplay rendering any critical discourse concerning the asymmetrical powers withinthis pivotal relationship, and what it means in the larger context, remote to say theleast.

Research in Drama Education 407

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Bib

lioth

èque

s de

l'U

nive

rsité

de

Mon

tréa

l] a

t 10:

06 2

3 Ju

ne 2

015

Video 1: Please see the full text version to access Video 1, or alternatively pleasesee the article’s supplementary material tab to access the video: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13569783.2013.836918

What’s more, certain scenes lent themselves badly to the forum, insofar as theprotagonist/antagonist dyad was not easily identifiable. For example, the squatter’sscene demonstrates how he profits from the indeterminacy of certain places in order

Figure 2. From left to right: Jessica (Homeless participant), Carl, Professional actress. A scene inthe play depicting food line-ups.

408 S. Hamel

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Bib

lioth

èque

s de

l'U

nive

rsité

de

Mon

tréa

l] a

t 10:

06 2

3 Ju

ne 2

015

to set up camp. His monologue is interrupted by a bunch of tourists who arefascinated by this squatter. They take photos in a carnival-like fashion – hence thevagueness of this scene in which the protagonist/antagonist dyad has been blurred.The question of the right to the city as a contested realm rather than a harmoniousorderly sphere was not subjected to later deliberation, though the question is at thevery heart of some of the social tensions which underlie relational dynamics in urbancentres (Mitchell 2003). In fact, this gap was mentioned by a city civil servant: ‘Therewas a great line in regards to space, the knowledge of space [in the squatter’s scene],but the question of sharing public space is not emphasised sufficiently in the play’.This municipal employee also deplored the vague and at times incomprehensibleprofile of the homeless characters depicted in the play and personified by ourhomeless participants.

Moreover, displacement of the visible signs of marginalised populations like thehomeless should be questioned. Indeed, this displacement could be read as a sign ofthe privatisation of public space in the incessant push for orderly and prosperousurban centres designed for the consumption delight of the affluent. In this context,the stubborn visibility of the homeless who refuse to slip into social inexistence canbe construed as a constant reminder of their struggle to keep public spaces publicand accessible to all regardless of one’s spending power (Mitchell 2003).

The February 6th Forum Theatre: invalidation and the denial of recognition

The level of participation exceeded our expectations: 68 people showed up, when wewere expecting only 50 or so. As anticipated, many civil areas were well represented:downtown residents, transient residents from bordering communities, police officers,some business people, research and community workers, a health care worker,municipal decision makers, and a politician at the provincial level – in other words, afull array of stakeholders concerned with cohabitation in downtown Montreal.

Those missing from the evening: other homeless. There is no doubt that we hadoverestimated the solidity of the social network of our handful of participants onwhom we relied in the mobilisation of peers, not to mention that the social agendaof the researcher was somewhat disavowed by the total absence of peers. Theabsence of homeless peers who could potentially echo the claims made in the playhindered any possibility of a counter narrative when faced with invalidation fromthe audience. As such, their absence was a significant constraint for the joker whoacted as a ‘human shield between our homeless group and audience members’(Practitioner during the group discussion following the event) rather than a dialogicalconduit. Indeed, instead of engaging audience members to assume the role of Spect-actors by momentarily stepping inside the shoes of our homeless protagonists,spectators opined on what was presented on stage in a two-way conversation withthe joker. Only three replacements were attempted towards the end of the eveningas most spectators were leaving.

In spite of some of the spontaneous reactions during the play which reflectedreceptivity, the first interventions from the spectators foretold the rift to come: amentality of ‘us, the good tax abiding citizens’ versus ‘them, these homeless thatseem to reject help offered by their community resources’. On top of questioning thesound thinking behind public spending in terms of homelessness, many comments

Research in Drama Education 409

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Bib

lioth

èque

s de

l'U

nive

rsité

de

Mon

tréa

l] a

t 10:

06 2

3 Ju

ne 2

015

during the forum mirrored a perception that there is an absence of moral facultiesamongst those people who refuse, for example, to sleep in shelters:

It’s puzzling to me because these people [the homeless] claim to feel rejected, but thereare some who try to help them and they reject this help. Sleeping on the sidewalk like adog can’t be fulfilling for them. I can’t imagine that a person in such a situation couldfeel fulfilled.

Claiming that most neighbourhood residents are more tolerant than what wasdepicted in the play, this same resident and her husband called for more efforts andpoliteness on the part of the homeless themselves:

I’m under the impression that we [domiciled] are being asked to be more tolerant butcouldn’t the homeless also do their part in terms of respecting the passersby not tomention try harder to overcome their homelessness?’ (Wife)

I asked a homeless person I see regularly how he feels about the neighborhood and hetold me that he felt quite lucky to be in such a tolerant part of town.(Husband)

Video 2: Please see the full text version to access Video 2, or alternativelyplease see the article’s supplementary material tab to access the video: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13569783.2013.836918

Targeted seasonal police sweeps, designed to rid the neighbourhood of itsunsavoury elements according to the homeless group, are mentioned in the play as acommon practice which often results in massive incarceration of several homelessbystanders. A police chief, present at our event, categorically denied this sort ofmeasure as a ‘possible unfortunate thing of the past’ which no longer took placesince he’d been assigned to the area, while a community activist sitting behind himhad an incredulous smirk on her face. One of our homeless participants, often directlytargeted by these sweeps, objected:

410 S. Hamel

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Bib

lioth

èque

s de

l'U

nive

rsité

de

Mon

tréa

l] a

t 10:

06 2

3 Ju

ne 2

015

Homeless participant: ‘Since when?!? Since when have these sweeps stopped?!? The dayafter Thanks giving this year Sir…there was one the day after thanks giving!’

Police Chief: ‘The day after thanks giving?!’

Participant: ‘The day after thanks giving of this year!!!’ Anyway, we won’t take the timeto settle this now…’

Police Chief: ‘Yeah, yeah… We’ll discuss this later’.

Video 3: Please see the full text version to access Video 3, or alternativelyplease see the article’s supplementary material tab to access the video: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13569783.2013.836918

The same spectator suggested that the exclusion depicted in the play wasmisleading because according to most, ‘The exclusion is self-applied’ by thehomeless themselves ‘who choose to drink beer instead of buying food’. In theabsence of support from those audience members who directly witness thediscriminatory police tactics towards the homeless on a daily basis in their workand in the absence of homeless peers in the audience, our homeless participant wasin fact reduced to silence for the rest of this event.

Two of three character replacements involved a third character, neither protag-onist nor antagonist. The third replacement involved the character of the iratepasserby solicited by two homeless teens begging for change or cigarettes. While thischaracter was identified by the audience as the oppressor due to his aggressiveattitude towards the beggars, in two of the three replacements, he was framed as theoppressed.

In the first of these replacements, a telephone conversation was simulatedbetween this exasperated character, oppressed by excessive solicitation, and one ofhis domiciled neighbours as this third ‘neutral’ character. In this exchange, the latterreassures the former that instead of getting angry or feeling overwhelmed, he couldjust as easily ignore this solicitation seeing as there are community resources that

Research in Drama Education 411

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Bib

lioth

èque

s de

l'U

nive

rsité

de

Mon

tréa

l] a

t 10:

06 2

3 Ju

ne 2

015

provide basic goods for these indigent youths, thereby reinforcing the indifferencetowards marginalised populations. In the second replacement, a young female Spect-actor attempts to reason with the irate domiciled passerby insisting that he need notbe so rude with the young beggars. Finally, an elected city official stepped on stageto replace the exasperated passerby. In this attempt, he stepped out of characterto describe how, in ‘real life’, he was rudely accosted by a street youth who yelled:‘I hope you die you fucking bastard!!!’, when he chose to ignore this youth’ssolicitation.

This intervention justified claims made by those who encourage passersby not togive to beggars who are undeserving of the charitable donations of the law abidingcitizens. Furthermore, it reinforced the idea that there are ‘good, polite, deservinghomeless people’ and there are threatening ones. In one fail swoop, tensions whichunderscore co-presence between the homeless and other dwellers were reduced to aproblem of poor manners on the part of the homeless and the passersby alike,thereby skirting the issue of the right to public space regardless of social status orone’s spending power.

The uneasy passage from third-world aesthetics to first-world individualism

The oppressed in Boal’s late 1960s and early 1970s aesthetic language confrontedobvious enemies in the military regime in Brazil (and other totalitarian regimes inLatin America). Indeed, beyond extreme economic gaps between the poor and theaffluent, censorship and repression were commonplace. In other words, Boal’s workis ‘rooted in the experience of political struggle under conditions of overt and brutaleconomic and political oppression’ (Strawbridge 2000, 8). In spite of the fact thatoppression can be pointed out in North America with the homeless embodying theimage of marginalisation in its extreme manifestation, there is a prevailing ‘belief inan absent or inaccessible power centre that cannot be attacked…. The constructionof an invisible, inviolable enemy tempers our confrontational urges’ (Schutzman1994, 140). This prevailing belief exacerbates the individualistic a-political contextswithin which Theatre of the Oppressed practitioners perform their role as joker. AsNeelands (2007) rightly points out, when working in Europe and North America, Boalhimself was influenced by the therapeutic underpinnings of identity politics as isevidenced by his Rainbow of Desire and Cops in the Head techniques. This therapeuticshift reflects the changing context from Latin-America to Europe (Strawbridge 2000).Schutzman is less critical of Boal and his techniques as used by other practitionersthe world over by acknowledging the dialogue between social activism and‘therapeutic sensibilities’. Strawbridge echoes Schutzman as she recognises theconnection between personal identity and politics which she correlates with politicsand therapy as identity is shaped by systems of meaning embedded in powerrelations.

On the contrary, O’Sullivan likens Boal’s techniques to individualistic empower-ment. Drawing from Callinico’s critique of Boal’s Theatre of the Oppressed (1995),O’Sullivan 2001 convincingly argues that there is a considerable gap between Boal’sMarxist theoretical leanings and his actual practice which she qualifies as ‘Reformist’at best in that it emphasises individual emancipation while leaving the largeroppressive realities unchanged. In fact, in as much as Boal’s approach is premised ontrying new ideas in order to free the protagonist from his or her oppression through

412 S. Hamel

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Bib

lioth

èque

s de

l'U

nive

rsité

de

Mon

tréa

l] a

t 10:

06 2

3 Ju

ne 2

015

his Forum Theatre model, it echoes the Hegelian metaphysical primacy of thoughtover experience which clearly contradicts Marx’s concept of Praxis (O’Sullivan 2001).

In light of this, the struggles for recognition as legitimate citizens in the debateover the right to the city for the homeless that my research aimed at uncoveringrequire ‘…a political theory for AT [Applied theatre] that both recognises and cross-references economic injustices with cultural and symbolic injustices … typical ofidentity politics’ (Neelands 2007, 312). But, in a climate of scarce resources for manynon-profit organisations pressured to foster social inclusion by enhancing individualadaptation to the existing social order for those who fall through the cracks,questioning the soundness of a given socio-political arrangement is a riskyproposition to say the least. As a case in point, during the group discussion whichfollowed the event, the practitioner admitted being ‘contaminated by his previousrole as coordinator of a coalition where the imperative to please everyone at all costsis commonplace’, and this, in the ever pervasive quest for consensual agreement.Furthermore, as Director of his Theatre Company, he shied away from a more criticalapproach when faced with potential funders in the audience to whom he directlyspoke during this event.

The rhetoric of social inclusion often underscores applied theatre projects as it isone of the main criteria by which a project is evaluated and funded. As Prentkisuggests, these projects are ‘…predicated upon a colonial model where the centresprescribe what is good for the periphery … in the name of “social inclusion.” Thisagenda is predicated upon the notion that society … or the status quo, is somethingin which any right-thinking person would wish to be included’ (Prentki 2012, 202).

Despite my deconstructive aims, perhaps a careful scrutiny of my own researchagenda, that is, including unheard narratives of the homeless in neighbourhoodpublic forums, uncovers this same colonial social inclusion tendency, one which wasclearly disavowed by the absence of homeless peers at this event. Be that as it may,the practitioner’s acute awareness of this harsh colonial funding reality significantlyundermined his freedom to embody the role of joker as ‘fool’. Instead, his role wasreduced to that of ‘a glorified master of ceremonies or keeper of the rules’(Prentki2012, 209).

As such, the unquestioned rhetoric which dominated the agenda during theForum Theatre event went well beyond a simple rejection of the content of the play.The audience turned the tables around as they appropriated the narratives of theoppressed towards themselves: shop owners and residents depicted themselves asoppressed by aggressive solicitation and by overall anti-social behaviours of theirhomeless neighbours who were portrayed as responsible for their own lifeconditions, thereby justifying the right to indifference claimed by some of thedomiciled.

In fact, by blurring the divide between oppressed and oppressor, this rhetoric andthe few character replacements transgressed one of the rules in Theatre of theOppressed, that is, the replacement of the protagonist. Indeed, because audiencemembers were experientially unfamiliar with the practical and psychologicalimplications of the homeless experience, no one dared to replace a homelesscharacter. But rather than replacing the antagonist role of indignant passerby toquestion his class bias and its inherent ‘right to indifference’, the discussions focusedon facile solutions like better mutual attitudes at best, or worst, a blatant justification

Research in Drama Education 413

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Bib

lioth

èque

s de

l'U

nive

rsité

de

Mon

tréa

l] a

t 10:

06 2

3 Ju

ne 2

015

of this right to indifference as is illustrated by the anecdotal evidence described bythe city official.

Nevertheless, this appropriation of the perspectives of the oppressed by theaudience, as well as the recourse to this third character speaks to the interdepend-ence between the homeless and urban dwellers who share a common ‘OppressiveTerritory’: the witness who steps out of her silence to mediate tensions stemmingfrom the uncomfortable co-presence between the homeless and the indignantpasserby is also ‘oppressed’ by his attitude towards the less fortunate; the passerbyas well can be considered ‘oppressed’ by the concentration of homelessness in thedowntown area where affordable housing is fast becoming a vestige of the past.Neither is directly to blame for the increase of homelessness, but they bothexperience its impacts. This interdependence between More than one oppressed-protagonist is highlighted by Schutzman (1994) and Spry (1994) as one of thepossible outcomes of a first-world Theatre of the Oppressed aesthetic language. Infact, the identification and theatrical embodiment of oppressive territory whichinvolves more than one ‘oppressed’ can partially overcome the dichotomousoppressed and oppressor without forfeiting the socio-political agenda which definesTheatre of the Oppressed, despite O’Sullivan’s claims.

However, in our particular case, within this a-political individualistic setting,coupled with the lack of agency of the joker who was ‘caught between his role asjoker of the event and that of Director of his Company’ in constant need of publicfunds2, this notion of ‘Oppressive Territory’ went unaddressed in terms of potentialalliances. Indeed, interventions were reduced to individual agency uncoupled fromlarger social issues like lack of affordable housing in an insidious gentrificationprocess, let alone a critical discussion on the privatisation of public space. In sum,each interlocutor was attempting to preserve his or her own sense of self as a ‘goodperson’ rather than an indifferent or rude oppressor, finding it hard to view him orherself as complicit in the problem of homelessness through complacency and lackof solidarity.

Finally, the ‘oppressed’ status of the homeless was even called into question as itwas stated that being homeless and/or oppressed in downtown Montreal wasrelatively mitigated by easy access to food and shelter not to mention by the self-proclaimed tolerance and generosity of open-minded domiciled neighbours, to thepoint of out and out rejecting the social exclusion experienced by the homelessgroup as is clearly suggested by one of the interventions cited above. This furthersubstantiates the challenges faced by Theatre of the Oppressed practitioners whenapplying a third-world aesthetic language of resistance to first-world individualisticself-righteousness premised on meritocracy. The latter tends to frame the very idea ofoppression as a personal problem stemming from ill-suited individual choices.

Conclusion

Using Forum Theatre as a dialogical medium, this research project aimed at restoringthe voices of those who, by challenging the normative conceptions of order in publicspace, develop their own understandings of cohabitation in the urban setting. Whatcan be said about an experience that has reproduced those same blind spots foundwithin typical arenas of deliberation? Educated people of social standing were giventheir right to speech, while the homeless were reduced to silence – reduced to the

414 S. Hamel

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Bib

lioth

èque

s de

l'U

nive

rsité

de

Mon

tréa

l] a

t 10:

06 2

3 Ju

ne 2

015

status of passive stand-ins, after having so courageously and generously exposedthemselves on stage.

Clearly, this particular Forum Theatre experience could very well be analysed fromseveral angles not addressed in this article, including its formal aspects (methodsused, time frame, space, etc.) and it is more substantial aspects (profile of thehomeless participants, theoretical groundings of the researcher, scope of theresearch, perspectives of the practitioner regarding Theatre of the Oppressed andhis role as joker, etc.). Instead, this article relates the appropriation of the perspectivesof the oppressed by members of the audience to the challenges faced by Theatre ofthe Oppressed practitioners in general in their use of Theatre of the Oppressed in thefirst-world. It does this by exploring how these challenges actually unfolded in thisspecific case study.

The individualistic paradigm which underscored this whole process was clearlymanifest in the practitioner’s efforts to illicit reflexivity in the group of homelessparticipants by stressing introspective thought divorced from structural constraints.For example, rather than exploring the ‘oppressed and oppressor within’ stressingthe more a-political therapeutic individualistic emancipation through knowledge ofself, perhaps the interdependence between the homeless participants we workedwith and some of the significant interlocutors they mentioned during the workshopsmight of been emphasised during the creative process, thereby pointing towardsunsuspected alliances, as a way to restore the humanity of both oppressor andoppressed (Freire 1972, in O’Sullivan 2001).

This individualism reflects the invisible power dynamics typical of liberaldemocracies referred to by Schutzman. This context of an unattainable power centreserves as a backdrop in many applied theatre projects in general and in this Theatreof the oppressed experience in particular. Consequently, this rather a-politicalframework was reified rendering critical deconstruction concerning issues likehomelessness remote.

The funding climate within which Theatre of the Oppressed practitionersnegotiate their interventions is centred on quantifiable results according to socialinclusion criteria. This further ensures that a-political individualistic approaches gounchecked and our experience is no exception. This experience did not inspire adramatic collision of the oppressive experiences of the audience with an acknow-ledgement of their oppressive class status which might have led to a space ofintersubjective solidarity as a possible outcome. In a certain sense, it reified the‘culture of silence’ (Freire 1972, in Strawbridge 2000) inhabited by the homeless.Indeed, in this case study, a widespread fear of conflict and of ramped up tensionsled to a narrow understanding of cohabitation between the homeless and thedomiciled as a mere question of good manners. This facile remedy was all that wasneeded to magically alleviate the oppression of the homeless and their exasperateddomiciled neighbours. In light of this, the possible therapeutic value of this exchangewas confounded with notions of adaptation and conformity mirrored by socialinclusion imperatives, rather than with Boal’s therapeutic venues which thrive onvery real inconsistency, conflict and disorder (Schutzman 1994). This reductive turn ofevents was pointed out by one of the last interventions from the audience. Acommunity activist reminded all who were present that night that ‘good manners’are the least of a homeless person’s concern, a person who has a cardboard box or acrowded refuge to call home cannot be expected to smile politely as hundreds of

Research in Drama Education 415

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Bib

lioth

èque

s de

l'U

nive

rsité

de

Mon

tréa

l] a

t 10:

06 2

3 Ju

ne 2

015

people pass her by in total indifference. She Further insisted that homelessnessshould never illicit indifference or even tolerance but indignation directed at theState not at the homeless themselves. A welcome intervention indeed.

Beyond the uneasy transposition from a third-world aesthetic to a first-worldaesthetic illustrated by this specific case, a question remains concerning thetransformative limits of Theatre of the Oppressed in any context. Indeed, it is focused,as O’Sullivan claims, on ‘Micro-revolutions’ aimed more at therapeutic healing andpurging than at challenging existing social arrangements. In our case, a subsequentdiscussion between the practitioner, one of the more invested homeless participantsand me, confirms this tendency whereby the practitioner mentioned he felt theaudience needed a purge. There is no doubt that this a-political therapeutic leaning isin stark contradiction with Boal’s initial criticism of the Aristotelian catharsis.

Keywords: Forum Theatre; deliberation; homeless; public space; recognition

Notes1. Names of homeless participants are fictitious.2. Comment from the newly appointed coordinator of the neighbourhood coalition we

partnered with during a subsequent discussion including the practitioner and myself.

Notes on contributor

As a Ph.D. in Applied Humanities at the University of Montreal, and professor at ConcordiaUniversity Sociology-Anthropology Department, Sonia Hamel developed a passion for urbananthropology and social activism. Following her graduate degree, she drew from this socialactivism by getting involved in several Montreal neighbourhoods where she focused onmobilising disenfranchised populations. This experience raised important questions aboutaccess to public space for marginalised groups which she explored in her thesis.

References

Lefebvre, H. 1972. Le droit à la vile [The right to the city]. Paris: Éditions Anthropos.Mitchell, D. 2003. The right to the city social justice and the fight for public space. New York: TheGuilford Press.

Neelands, J. 2007. Taming the political: The struggle over recognition in the politics of appliedTheatre. Research in Drama Education 12, no. 2: 305–17.

O’Sullivan, C. 2001. The postgraduate short article searching for the Marxist in Boal. Research inDrama Education 6, no. 1: 85–97.

Prentki, T. 2012. Fooling with applications. In The fool in European theatre stages of Folly, ed.T. Prentki, 201–25. New York: Palgrave MacMillan.

Schutzman, M. 1994. Brechtian Shamanism: The political therapy of Augusto Boal. In PlayingBoal theatre, therapy, activism, ed. M. Schutzman and J. Cohen-Cruz, 137–57. London:Routledge.

Spry, L. 1994. Structures of power toward a theatre of liberation. In Playing Boal theatre, therapy,activism, ed. M. Schutzman and J.Cohen-Cruz, 171–235. London: Routledge.

Strawbridge, S. 2000. Some thoughts on connections between the political and the therapeutic inthe work of fox and Boal. Dramatherapy 22, no. 2: 8–12.

416 S. Hamel

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Bib

lioth

èque

s de

l'U

nive

rsité

de

Mon

tréa

l] a

t 10:

06 2

3 Ju

ne 2

015