Internationale Kulturwissenschaften International Cultural Studies Etudes culturelles internationales
Sektion VI:		Kunst und "Globalisierung"
Section VI:		The Arts and "Globalisation"
Section VI:		Art et "globalisation"

Gabriele Pfeiffer (Wien) [BIO]

German

French

From affirmations of interculturality in theatre to a transcultural form of theatre

Intercultural theatre has existed throughout the history of theatre. Theorists of theatre try to describe this phenomen and the relation between its components with prefixes such as inter-, intra-, trans-, cross-, neo-, de-, multicultural, etc. theatre. Intercultural theatre is limited by neither time nor by space. It is always, and everywhere, defined by an encounter between at least two components of theatre, initiating a process from which a new component of theatre springs. Local and foreign, familiar and unfamiliar are brought together; unintentionally or deliberately, consciously or unconsciously. The intercultural encounter becomes intracultural.

Intracultural Contacts on Stage

In the context of theatre, intracultural contacts can involve different traditions, forms or components of theatre. From a purely theoretical point of view the various interrelations can be subdivided into three main groups, involving intercultural contact between audience and actor/performance, between distinct components of theatre or in the context of the study of theatre.

The spectator taking part in a theatre performance may be a member of any one group or another. The essential question is whether or not he/she is defined as "being part of the majority or minority." This has major consequences for the theatrical event. If there is just one single person in the audience unfamiliar with the kind of performance taking place, that person is obliged to aspire to an intracultural process. The first step has already been taken by attending the performance, even if this is a unilateral act, in that initially the spectator must approach the performance. However, if the theatrical performance/performers decide also to actively "approach" the passive spectator , even though that person may be in the minority, then the product, performance, staging and the many other components of theatre cannot fail to be influenced. The original theatrical form is transformed and often the loss is huge. Richard Schechner describes such a case very clearly in his book "Theater Anthropologie". He describes a little village called Makehuku in a river valley in Papa-New Guinea , where since the 60s the famous Dance of the Mud Men has been performed especially for tourists. The inhabitants originally performed this dance when they felt threatened. The dance possessed its own dramaturgy but this has changed completely with the change of audience. "Because the ten minute long dance wasn’t long enough by western standards, it was extended by including bow and arrow shooting demonstrations, a photo op and a "market." (1) Thus one should not overlook the fact that contacts are not always only advantageous, as is too easily assumed from a eurocentric perspective. The flip side is loss. Loss, abandonment, and striving for something new are the main characteristics of intracultural theatre.

The most explicit examples of intracultural processes seen and heard on stage are to be found in works directed by Ariane Mnouchkine and Peter Brook. However, it’s not often noted that this occurs only at isolated moments. The variations are multifarious; actors from different countries, theatre traditions from different cultures, and components such as language, music, and stage settings from different forms of theatre. Sometimes the final product is purely a collage and the intracultural process occurs only during the encounter with the production and during the performance itself. The decisive moment is communication.

De-coding and re-coding of single components of theatre are the central processes at the heart of intracultural encounter. However, polylogue (linguistic) balance is not always achieved in the effort to de-code newly invented codes of theatre. Supposing two forms of theatre meet and polylogue (multilingualism) isn't chosen as the Conditio sine qua non, the result is a style of theatre embodying a dominant and a submissive role. A transcultural process exists under such circumstances, but it is marked by an imbalance between advantage and disadvantage.

In the case of contact between African and foreign cultures, more often, it is the offshoot of African culture that tends to suffer effacement, while the foreign is upheld as the quintessential creation - the 'consummation devoutly to be wished'. (2)

By attempting to incorporate foreign components of theatre in an eclectic way without de-basing them, the "missionary" character of the exercise is abrogated but an imbalance remains. When foreign components of theatre are "inserted" into a unified local theatre form, often without a clear relation to that form, the impression is created of "quotations" simply strung together. These components can be given different emphases and combined with local components of theatre, or, in extreme forms, give rise to a form of theatre as practised by Robert Wilson. The pleasure of such performances is really only accessible to experts.

Purely ornamental transcultural processes can be observed not only within particular forms of theatre but also within the macrocosmos of theatre.

Distinct theatre forms may be presented side-by-side without coming into direct transcultural contact (festivals!). Exclusive and discrete theatre forms may be confronted with one another. The intracultural character of theatre festivals occurs through contact with the audience and, at a later date, in the utilization of newly discovered foreign components in one’s own theatre productions. Beyond their unique function as a kind of museum of theatre, festivals are also a rich storehouse in which to discover new theatre forms. However considering that intercultural theatre is more than simply observing previously unknown components of theatre, festivals can act as fora for polylogue and thus advance transcultural theatre processes. This would also be an opportunity to create the optimal situation for an intercultural theatre free of prejudice toward any of its contributors.

An Approach to Transcultural Theatre

The ideal intracultural theatre would be a fusion of at least two theatre forms to create a completely new form in which advantage and disadvantage are no longer significant and in which one consciously works with the differences between various theatre forms. Intracultural theatre should neither disguise cultural differences nor simply set them in juxtaposition without further motivation. Theatre is by definition a confrontation between heterogenous elements.

Theatre is unthinkable without a communicative relation between author and director, director and actor, actor and spectator, text and production etc. The heterogenous character of systems of meaning, codes and subjects is the very essence of theatre and becomes more complex in an intracultural context. It is essential to work collectively if one is to work efficiently in such a context. Theatre offers anyway the best opportunity to work as a group. In the intracultural context this extends to incorporating the cultural background of each participant. The difficulty lies in walking the tightrope between ignoring the differences and being exhibitionist about them. It is essential to engage in a polylogue discourse already in preparation of a production to avoid simply repeating "Völkerschauen", or folkloristic spectacles, which do unquestionably have a theatrical quality of their own. Approaching foreign forms of theatre on a polylogue basis provides an opportunity for a genuine coalescence of familiar and unfamiliar. The translation of a foreign drama text , understood from the point of view of semiotics, can be for example a transcultural process in relation to the text itself, when the translator works from an intracultural understanding of the activity. However that doesn’t automatically lead to intracultural performance. The danger remains of using the text in an exclusive form of theatre, without considering adequately the interplay between the original and the current text. Consistent enhancement of such translation techniques lead to an aesthetically highly controlled form of theatre of its own.. But this is not transcultural.

It is not just the audience and the actors who participate intraculturally in the discourse of theatre. Scholars attempting to decipher, represent and translate foreign forms of theatre work in a comparative mode and thus combine their local forms of theatre with the foreign. They act as catalysors for intracultural encounter between various theatre traditions. Exclusive forms of theatre are translated and compared, or mutual influences are demonstrated. Even scholars when apparently confronted with two variants of theatre foreign to themselves enter upon an intracultural, rather than intercultural, process because of their own cultural backgrounds. Theatre in an intracultural context is by its very nature more than dealing with the unfamiliar on stage. The intracultural process is defined in the relation between the familiar and the unfamiliar. This is reflected in the entire history of theatre, as foreign, exclusive styles of theatre have been incorporated, have disappeared as new models have arisen, and have achieved their own identity in form and content.(3). Historical transculturalism is continually coming into being.

NOTES

1	Cf. Richard Schechner, Theater-Anthropologie, 1990, 77.
2	Ola Rotimi, Much Ado About Brecht, in: The Dramatic Touch of Difference, 1990, 253.
3	Cf. Carl Weber, AC/TC. Currents of Theatrical Exchange, in: Interculturalism and Performance, 1991, 34.

		Internationale Kulturwissenschaften International Cultural Studies Etudes culturelles internationales
Sektion VI:		Kunst und "Globalisierung"
Section VI:		The Arts and "Globalisation"
Section VI:		Art et "globalisation"