Contemporary Feminist Theatres

To Each Her Own

Lizbeth Goodman

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2003
• Topic: Literature
• eBook ISBN:
  9781134906956
• Subtopic: Performing Arts
• Index: Literature

Contemporary Feminist Theatres is a major evaluation of the forms feminism has taken in the theatre since 1968. Lizbeth Goodman provides a provocative and interdisciplinary study of the development of feminist theatres in Britain. She examines the treatment of key issues such as gender, race, sexuality, language and power in performance.
Based on original research and fresh data, Contemporary Feminst Theatres is a fully comprehensive and admirably clear analysis of a flourishing field of practice and inquiry.

1
CONTEMPORARY FEMINIST THEATRES

In the study of contemporary feminist theatres, developments in both practice and theory must be taken into account. This book addresses both. But while practice and theory may work together on paper, they rarely do so in the street or on the stage. The discrepancy between vocabularies and priorities which has often been labelled ‘the theory/practice divide’ does complicate any study of feminist theatre. The disjunction between academic and practical approaches to the making and viewing of feminist theatre becomes evident even in the attempt to define the terms for discussion. For example, though nearly all of the women interviewed for this study were supportive of the project, many were reluctant to have themselves and their work pigeonholed into what they tended to view as sterile academic categories, and many were also sceptical about the relevance and value of such theories in general. Several women interviewed were particularly wary of a university-supported study, the subject of which (let alone the women who create it) rarely receives comparable financial and/or creative support; therefore, it was necessary to establish some personal contacts before academic work could begin. Such tendencies are indicative of a situation acknowledged in areas of sociological enquiry but not so widely recognized in the Arts—whereby some of the women who might benefit most in the long term from a study of this kind are in a poor position from which to offer support in the short term. The resulting set of possible divisions between practitioners and academics or theorists is the subject of this chapter, in which the focus is on finding a workable definition of the term ‘feminist theatre’ which incorporates, or at least considers and represents, the views of practitioners.

DEFINING THE TERMS OF THE DISCOURSE

In defining feminist theatre as distinct from other representational forms, Loren Kruger has written:

There is a saying that women have always made spectacles of them selves.
However, it has been only recently, and intermittently, that women have made spectacles themselves. On this difference turns the ambiguous identity of a feminist theatre.¹

This, one of the keynotes to the book, is also one of its central themes. The social valuing of women’s public representations is one way of ‘placing’ the importance of feminist theatre. In all of the work examined, women are making the spectacles, though they may also be making spectacles of themselves. The role of the audience is important: the spectacle must be interpreted as such, as must any play or performance. Feminisms, theatres, politics and productions: these are the ‘spectacles’ or forms of representation examined in this book. All of them are made by women. Yet this in itself does not render them ‘feminist’.

In fact, the most difficult thing about writing on feminist theatres is reaching a definition, or set of definitions, of the term ‘feminist’ with which both theorists and practitioners might agree. In this book, the term is defined and redefined whenever it is necessary to distinguish one person’s or company’s approach to feminism. At the outset, however, it is important to point to the wide variety of approaches to the term ‘feminist’ among the practitioners interviewed and studied. The following set of quotations should give some indication of the diversity of opinions about the relationship between ‘feminism’ and women’s work in contemporary theatres:

Sarah Daniels: Feminism is now, like panty girdle, a very embarrassing word. Once seen as liberating, it is now considered to be restrictive, passé, and undesirable. I didn’t set out to further the cause of Feminism. However, I am proud if some of my plays have added to its influence.

Pam Gems: I think the phrase ‘feminist playwright’ is absolutely meaningless because it implies polemic, and polemic is about changing things in a direct political way. Drama is subversive.

Megan Terry: I’ve noticed, at these conferences where some men have been speaking out, that a lot of American males perceive feminists as separatists. They want to dismiss all women’s work if they think they’re not going to be allowed to be an equal part of the audience.

Yvonne Brewster: This feminist thing is always a little bit problematic with me, to be quite honest….I come from a very strong West Indian background, and in the West Indies the word ‘feminism’ has a really hollow ring, simply because it’s a matriarchal society. … So entering a European or British situation, one finds the concept a bit difficult….But I suppose in a way [my work with] Talawa is exceedingly feminist, if to be feminist means to look at things from a feminist perspective or a female perspective.

Ntozake Shange: I have been a feminist writer ever since I started. When I was nineteen I worked for the Young Lords Party instead of the Black Panther Party because in the Young Lords, equality for women was part of the platform of the party. I decided I was a feminist at that point [1968–70] and I’ve never stopped being one.

Caryl Churchill: When I was in the States in ‘79 I talked to some women who were saying how well things were going for women in America now with far more top executives being women, and I was struck by the difference between that and the feminism I was used to in England, which is far more closely connected with socialism.

Gillian Hanna: When you talk about [Monstrous Regiment] as a feminist group, you have to make a distinction between the organizational structure of the company and the work that appeared on the stage. The Regiment was established on the basis of feminist principles….It didn’t all come together at one moment. It wasn’t like a neat jigsaw. We were a disparate group of people who came together, and we had to establish our rules through the collective process as we went along…
There are certainly places where women’s issues are taken seriously these days—mostly in colleges and universities where ‘women’s studies’ are now an accepted part of the curriculum. But we mustn’t assume that we’ve achieved all our goals. If anything, we have to shout louder than ever: otherwise we will be buried beneath the backlash.

Joan Lipkin: I think you have to take a stand if you make political theatre or feminist theatre. You can pose a dialectic to the audience, but in some ways that’s kind of a post-modernist cop out. You can’t just say that there are so many points of view that I can’t take one. Part of what art, in my opinion, does is to illuminate a situation: not simply to reflect it but to somehow put a spin on it so that we see it differently. We have to, not necessarily offer solutions, but raise provocative questions that help us to think about issues differently.

All of these quotations are taken from recent (post-1986) words by women who have been studied as makers of feminist theatre.² All of these women appear and reappear in different sections of this book. Their words, in these brief statements pertaining to their own views of the ‘feminism’ of their work, are enlightening.

Some refer to socialist feminism, some to radical feminism, some to cultural feminism, though these labels are not explicitly used. The differences in perspective between the British and American women is not surprising, though the emphasis which Shange gives to radical feminist politics and which Churchill gives to socialist feminism is important. Both Gems and Brewster question the relevance of the feminist label to their work. Pam Gems has qualified her published statement (above) with the explanation that she considers herself feminist, and has always written from a feminist perspective, but she also wants to ‘steer would-be dramatic writers away from the preaching-to-the-converted, straight explicatory, exhortative, law laying down work that has been so prevalent in committed theatre’. She distinguishes between statements about drama per se, and about her own work:

Being labelled feminist creates disadvantages for the artist. but what is the alternative when you seek a just society?…I do not question the relevance of the word feminist to my work. The feminist outlook was my springboard.³

Thus, what sounds in one context like a possible refutation of the impact of feminism on Gems’ theatre writing is actually a much more complicated and ‘committed’ statement.

Yvonne Brewster argues from the perspective of a West Indian woman that the term ‘feminist’ has little or no meaning in her own cultural context, though she sees that her work with Talawa Theatre can be interpreted as feminist, if the term ‘feminist’ is defined in certain ways. Sarah Daniels jokes about the definition of the term ‘feminist’ as one which has cultural specificity and temporal or generational validity (‘like panty girdle’), yet she accepts the label for her work and for her life. Daniels’ remarks reveal a certain awareness of a feminist experience which has been inherited rather than created, and which she therefore sees from a certain perspective. Megan Terry comments on the male valuing of feminist work, while Gillian Hanna argues that it is important to keep the feminist agenda within reach of the theatre, and vice versa. Joan Lipkin argues that feminist theatre, like other forms of political theatre, must be directly and uncompromisingly political in order to effect social change.

All of these women make feminist theatre, according to someone’s definition. But whose definition, which definition, is most useful? If there is a difference between working as a woman with a ‘female perspective’ (Brewster’s working definition of feminism for her theatre), then can women’s theatre be defined as separate from feminist theatre? If so, several other questions are raised: can men make feminist theatre? Can the term ‘feminist theatre’ ever be applied in a way which means something concrete, or at least recognizable, to different listeners and readers, in different generations and cultural contexts? Can the term mean the same thing, or mean anything, when it is analysed by, as well as in relation to, women whose experiences are influenced by race and class difference? In what ways can differences between women, and between feminisms and theatres, inform rather than impede the making and studying of feminist theatres? This last question, which involves all the others, provides the focus for this chapter.

In addressing the differences between feminisms and theatres, it is helpful to set up a false dichotomy between the ‘mainstream’ and the ‘alterna tives’. The dichotomy is false in the sense that it implies that these two terms have fixed meanings, diametrically opposed to each other. But in fact, the terms only make sense in relation to each other: they are not antonyms, but rather hypothetical points on an imaginary continuum which defines the relative ‘legitimacy’ of various forms of cultural representation. Thus, it is significant that a certain sense of identification has developed among the members of what are called ‘alternative theatre groups’, who can hardly help perceiving their own status as outside the mainstream. This is important in that it is precisely the ‘otherness’ and sense of exclusion generated by opposition to the mainstream which creates the unique atmosphere of alternative theatres, and which gives it its generally politicized, often ‘radical’ edge. Most feminist theatre is ‘alternative theatre’ and is located on the ‘fringe’.

Some readers may not be familiar with the organization of British theatre into sectors. The term ‘mainstream theatre’ requires qualifiers, as it encompasses two major varieties of theatre. The body of theatre funded by the state, and not relying exclusively upon public demand for the individual production, is generally known as ‘mainstream subsidized theatre’. This is the theatre which has traditionally been valued as ‘real’ or ‘legitimate’ theatre; it includes most productions in the commercial theatre, the Royal Shakespeare Company main venues in London and in Stratfordupon-Avon, and at The Royal National Theatre at London’s South Bank Centre. In New York, this would include productions at subsidized venues such as the performance complex at Lincoln Centre. The term ‘mainstream commercial theatre’ refers to that body of large-scale theatre funded and ‘sold’ in a primarily commercial context. This term refers to London productions on the Shaftesbury Avenue circuit, and French boulevard theatre, as well as their American analogues in New York’s Broadway and major off-Broadway venues.

Of course, labels such as ‘fringe’, ‘alternative’ and ‘mainstream’ are themselves loaded: implicit in them is the value system of the British theatre establishment (which defines itself, and sees its own values reflected in the writing of academics and theatre critics of the ‘old school’). There is not one ‘new school’ of academic thinking, nor of theatre criticism. There are many new perspectives, and many writers of different generations who have begun to question the values of ‘the classics’ and ‘the mainstream’. But those who have addressed the issue— practitioners, academics and critics alike—have done so in different ways, in different contexts, for different reasons, and crucially, in different languages (even writings in English may use different vocabularies and dialects). Thus, the issue of valuing is critical: it affects how we read as well as what we read, what gets written, what gets published, and what theatres (and feminisms) get written about.

FEMINIST THEATRE IN CONTEXT

In discussion of the mechanisms and politics of theatre production, Bertolt Brecht wrote that the traditional framing of cultural and artistic standards ‘leads to a general habit of judging works of art by their suitability for the apparatus without ever judging the apparatus by its suitability for the work’.⁴ The term ‘apparatus criticus’ refers to the set of literary materials required for the study of a text. In the study of the theatre, however, the ‘text’ to be studied is actually a set of texts, and also includes the interpretations of readers and spectators. Thus, the apparatus is not clearly defined as the materials needed for literary analysis; it must also include materials for the study of the play in performance. In the study of feminist theatre, the ‘apparatus’ must be wider still: it must be suitable for the study of the aims and effects of feminist theatre as a form of cultural representation. Furthermore, because there are so many different branches of feminist thought, each of which informs a different kind of feminist theatre, the study of feminist theatre must be undertaken in an interdisciplinary context. This approach need not exclude consideration of literary values, but must not be limited or biased by literary critical concerns.

In Brecht’s formulation, the ‘apparatus’ refers to the qualities of work which render dramatic work ‘canonical’ or worthy of re-presentation for future generations. Yet Brecht’s notion of the ‘unsuitability’ of the apparatus to judge the value of some theatrical work was based on his awareness of the position of his own work outside the set values of the dominant critical apparatus. Similarly, this book begins with the idea that terms such as ‘women’s theatre’ and ‘feminist theatre’ are defined in relation to dominant assumptions about ‘what theatre is’. Feminist theatre (and indeed ‘women’s theatre’) is defined as ‘alternative’ because it is created by women in the context of patriarchal culture. It is most appropriate, therefore, to study feminist theatre as a form of cultural representation. Feminist theatre is created within a particular context, and is not most usefully considered in isolation from other forms of cultural representation.

The term ‘apparatus’ is used throughout the book to refer to the structures and value systems by and through which artistic works are ‘judged’. The term is used in a Brechtian spirit borrowed for use in another context, in arguing that while it is true that some feminist theatre does not ‘suit’ the apparatus of cultural value, it is also the case that traditional measures of value do not always ‘suit’ the study of feminist theatre. A more appropriate and constructive, though critical, approach to the study of feminist theatre can be arrived at through consideration of alternative sets of values informed by feminist and cultural theories of representation. There is no single set of values which can be applied to all feminist theatre, but rather there are certain values which pertain in general terms, and others which vary with different forms of theatre and different varieties of feminism. These can best be extracted from a study of the theatre itself, rather than by setting out any preconceived hypothesis which could only be ‘proved’ by manipulating the study.

Janelle Reinelt argues that the Brechtian conception of the function of the dominant apparatus is appropriate to the study of feminist theatre for two reasons: first, because both Brecht and feminist theatre foreground political agendas in what might be called ‘platform theatres,’ and second, because ‘the task of Brecht and also of feminist theatre is to interrupt and deconstruct the habitual performance codes of the majority (male) culture’.⁵ Contemporary feminist theory relies heavily upon permutations of this idea, variously formulated in debates about subjectivity and objectivity, otherness and positionality, agency and experience in gender studies.⁶ All these debates recognize the position of feminist representation in relation to the ‘apparatus’ of mainstream cultural values. And of course, different feminist perspectives such as the radical or cultural, the socialist and materialist, all assign different values to that ‘apparatus’.

The study of feminist theatre draws upon a range of disciplines, including but not limited to literary critical analysis. A brief reference illustrates the difficulty of applying literary theory to the ...

Table of contents

• COVER PAGE
• TITLE PAGE
• COPYRIGHT PAGE
• KEYNOTES
• SERIES EDITORS’ PREFACE
• ILLUSTRATIONS
• ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
• INTRODUCTION
• 1: CONTEMPORARY FEMINIST THEATRES
• 2: FEMINIST THEATRES 1968–90
• 3: FOUR COMPANIES
• 4: COMMON WORKING METHODS OF FEMINIST THEATRES
• 5: LESBIAN THEATRES AND THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVES
• 6: BLACK FEMINIST THEATRES IN CULTURAL CONTEXT
• 7: NEW DIRECTIONS IN FEMINIST THEATRE (S)
• 8: BRITISH FEMINIST THEATRE IN AN INTERNATIONAL CONTEXT
• CONCLUSION
• NOTES
• BIBLIOGRAPHY