CHAPTER EIGHTMY INTERSTANDINGS OF IN-BETWEENNESS

Introduction

The cast ended our performance by saying thank you to caregivers, friends, and

family who had been supporting them for months, years…decades. Their final thanks

were to me as their guide through many months together. Then they swarmed me in a

moment of sincere relief, happiness, thankfulness…and dare I say it… perhaps a little bit

of love. That is what marks our experience from the beginning… a love to speak and be

heard …human beings sharing stories. God, that moment of the cast laughing and

thanking each other was chokingly humble…that instant we forgot about an audience and

it was just us with no one else in the world. Just that briefest of times…and then it was

gone…the barn’s silent noise came rushing back registering itself in our consciousness.

The poultry show barn has been cleaned up, audience donations of food, clothing,

and sports equipment (price of admission) have been turned over to Open Door for its

use, the cast continues to revel in its well-deserved success. Costume, prop and set

element loans have been returned, and the work-lights-as-stage-lights are safely stored

away until next time. Audience interviews and final cast interviews are taking place, been

transcribed and analyzed. What remains is understanding the gifts I have received from

this experience. What are my interstandings of being in-between various relationships?

What shifts in my identity, voice, and personal power have emerged through the

performative experiences engaged in with a group of rural adults living with mental

disorder(s) as we develop and present an absurdist popular theatre community

production? It is to my place as popular theatre worker and cultural researcher that I

focus this chapter – what have been my own acts of knowledge through this process?

235

From the day I arrived to begin this theatrical journey, as informed by

performative inquiry, I found myself forever on the edge living in a whirlwind of chaos,

beginning with my involvement with a group of “mental” adults. This was an aspect of

identity I had only passing knowledge. From learning early on about the limited energy

levels, the longer time required to process things, the reduced ability to memorize written

work all served to knock me off balance as I strove to guide the group. In hindsight I

think that was a good thing. As the group move into zones of discomfort, risk and

unfamiliarity, it was fitting that I was pulled in similarly shaky ways as well.

“how can you possibly take a group like that – especially one whose – like in the ad who are – who are – people who are agoraphobic…like are paranoid….so you are taking people that are you know paranoid people…that are non-trusting…you take a group of non-trusters…and having them trust you and then give fully and then talk about things that they wouldn’t even tell their best friends – or their parents – you know – so you’re obviously giving something out there – otherwise – especially a group like that would not give back like that – which to be able to do that is just – you [Sidney] have a definite- like a definite talent….” (Tallulah, Interview 6, p. 43).

Just as with the cast and the audience in the previous two chapters, I focus my

discussion upon identity, voice, and power in my role as a cultural practitioner. There

have been many sources of satisfaction, but there are also key cautions that I have found

for myself that I will share for others contemplating similar pathways…

Borders and Internal Transgressions of Identity

Well before embarking upon this journey, I felt I needed to understand the town

and community, the people from within which participants were drawn. Working and

living within Duncan for over a year before approaching the people asking for actors was

time well journeyed. I created for myself something of an identity as insider rather than

as a complete academic outsider parachuting in to investigate. The many nuances and

236

sources of contact I relied upon, and my local knownness and at times lack, would have

been more problematic as elements of our work shifted. The need to be familiar with the

context is something I had remembered from my own growing up in a small rural

farming community. Outsiders were often viewed with suspicion. Assistance from

community members with regard to production elements would have been more difficult

or at least hesitant in providing things because of my membership as an outsider.

My somewhat extensive background within popular theatre was exclusively as an

actor or performer, so venturing into directing and running a project opened my eyes to

strengths I had not considered a cultural facilitator required. First and foremost was the

creation of an inner strength that allowed internalized turmoil and worry to churn while

the external persona of my role remained calm and constantly reassuring. There were a

few early meetings when only one or two people showed up while ringing in my ears was

my research supervisor’s cautions with regard to retaining enough participants. The first

time I had two people show up my heart plopped below my knees in disappointment. I

felt that was the end and I would be returning to the academic fold for further

instructions. But this was adult education; this was popular theatre. The tides and turns in

life happen and are felt more intensely within the social margins. I had to be faithful. I

had to be committed and show that commitment to the group. Then, people continued to

come and many returned….through to the end of the project. Two weeks prior to our

show most of the cast did now show up for a complete run through. The rehearsal before

the performance the key actors did not show up; much of their energies were spent from

the dress rehearsal two days before. There had been a family death in the family of

another actor. She came to let us know and then went back to her family to mourn. Life

237

happens and can really detour a group in unknown ways; the ebb of energies as with

bipolar cycles cannot be predicted, but had to be incorporated as best as the group

could…and keep going. Never stop. To stand still creates blockage…always wind the

group forward. Encourage the cast to lead often….have trust … show faith … play and

have fun. Out of meandering action comes new direction and exciting possibilities.

At times like the above I felt on my own… to worry about ‘what if?” The

loneliness, or rather the aloneness, of the work as the facilitator/organizer of popular

theatre is something to which I had never given consideration. As stated previously, as an

actor I always engaged with and socialized with other performers and the “director.” But

there is a definite “boundary” between actors and guide. After each rehearsal with the

group, the performers left quickly…usually leaving me to clean up and bring the gym

back to order. It was during those moments when I realized that it was I, who, initiated

the group. I was guiding the group. There was that separateness. I often took the time to

reflect and ponder what had happened that evening…. as I moved equipment around and

packed up. On particularly difficult evenings when something had happened to challenge

or an exercise that had fallen flat… I would sit in the middle of the room and look at the

gym’s ceiling and just stare in the empty volume of that space. In these periods I realized

just how small my sense of self really was when taken within the context of the largeness

of the group. There is separateness between facilitator and group – while this can be and

needs to be breached for popular theatre work to take place to spread power and control,

the border between the two can never be fully rendered unfelt.

Related to the sense of isolation, was the position that others construct of the

popular theatre worker’s role as “lightening rod.” The group became identified by the

238

facilitator, both, internally by the group as well as the various publics external to it. The

repetitive act of asking me or focusing suggestions in my direction within the group,

continually reconstructed me as the centre, not a position with which I have ever been

particularly comfortable. An audience member pointed out that there was a “difference”

between them and me, even when the group performed as a unit. There were moments

when the cast waited for my cue; other times when they did not. There was the reading of

history, in a costume that had echoes of teacher directing a class-as-audience in the show.

And I did play a doctor at the very beginning; both of these are power positions.

Knowing me as working on a dissertation it seemed that my background became

compounded when working within these roles. To be complete, the cast did not want

these roles. My parts also included a minimum waged worker in a grocery store, an alter

ego to a doctor, a father, an unemployed person begging for work and a faceless

bureaucrat. The point is that we all played a variety of roles, some with power; many with

little if any. It was through playing both sides of the privilege equation that I was

beginning my own increased awareness of understanding oppression from a disability

perspective.

When compliments and critique about the group came from the community, the

target was inevitably me. Words of support from the town I would encourage to be

spoken with the group such as when the cast was interviewed by the press. The brightness

of their energy as their words were being taken down and then published was something

to behold (Appendix J). Others’ negativity I took on. Why did I do that? It seems to have

been my habitual role as nurturer, as caretaker, as protector; an act of paternalism perhaps

but one I felt … feel that I have to continue to take because of the newness of the process

239

to the group, and for many the first time experiencing their opinion being taken seriously.

These were tender moments that could crush or nourish. That is not to say I have not

shared critique, but rather I softened or framed the negative comments in a way that was

less vitriolic, less damaging. Once the group was told, both the good and the bad (by far,

much more positive than negative), we discussed what that meant to them individually

and as a group.

I took in what it meant to teach with a profound love, appreciation, and respect

with and for the learners working with me. None of what was achieved was the sole

creation of any one person. Each in his/her own way, with his/her own abilities and

talents constructed something that no one in the group could ever have hoped to achieve

individually or with another group. The cast created social change in that each member

was a component of relationships that allowed for knowledge to be created. Because of

acts of interstanding, social change cannot be done in isolation of a facilitator (that

doesn’t mean it has to be an outsider, just someone to spark the engine, to move things

forward). To be social action all who participate or witness are changed in some way. If

there is no change for the social change agent as well as those experiencing evolution,

can that be called social change? I do not think so. That is domestication.

Because of the variety of personalities and the suddenness of changes that can

occur when working with “mental” adults, this project highlighted the need to be flexible

with regard to what occurs in any particular meeting, and how the performance and what

followed unfolded; flexibility was a constant. When 12 to 15 people are asking or talking

in their excitement, I want to give each his/her attention. This remained challenging.

Also, I made the mistake of arriving that first rehearsal with a well-thought out and

240

planned lesson for that session only to quickly discover that the structure was a hindrance

to the freedom for imaginations to be released and explored. The irony was that certain

non-clients within the group were clamouring for exactly that; not realizing the

impediment that elaborate structure can create. Rather than become “the” authority which

lesson planning created, I later in the process arrived with groupings of games and

exercises that I chose depending on where the group’s energy was for a particular

session. Often this required a constant shifting of focus or approach as energies and

attentions ebbed and flowed through our time together. My own flexibility allowed for

others to become more open and playful within relationships that we fostered.

Reflecting upon this sense of flexibility, I ventured back to an early adult

education text used in my master of adult education program by Pratt and Associates

(1998). I wanted to understand the teaching styles that I had grown into using since my

own exploration in this project. There are five described in Pratt’s book: transmission,

apprenticeship, developmental, nurturing, and social reform. Previously I had considered

my teaching style as developmental; whereby learners, through incorporating prior

knowledge, developed a critical thinking perspective of particular content. The focus for

me was upon the process of students learning.

Within this current project, because of the heavy reliance upon almost a

counselling relationship between cast and myself, relationships were central rather than

the process of intentional understanding. Insights became “happy accidents” rather than

the focus of a “lesson.” Acts of awareness were borne through the fostering of

interactions that allowed for these naturally. Trust and respect became central.

Expression of awareness through emotion, physicality, spirituality, and bodies were my

241

responsibilities as it was within the nurturing paradigm. Within this frame I am

considered to be facilitator and friend to others within the group. Beyond the project, the

friendship aspect has continued unabated with many in the group, with those who

continued on into new explorations with me and those who opted not to continue.

Within the group, many were looking toward me as a role model within the

unfamiliarity of this work. Their gaze was continual and examined aspects I had not

given much thought to. For example, while I was worrying about small numbers but

continuing anyway, others in the group saw this and decided that the project was

important because I was committed to it regardless of who showed. For others it was the

profoundness of my looking at them in their eyes as we “checked in” each week without

judgement; rather, I wanted to understand and empathize with what it meant to go

through a medication adjustment, or to run out of psychotropic drugs, multiple and

conflicting diagnoses, to experience deep depression, or to understand how mainstreamed

people related to mental diversity. In order to understand another’s perspective, there was

a requirement to not censor or judge. One’s analysis of another forecloses understanding,

and blocks an opening up to a variety of worlds.

The other teaching style or approach that seems to have evolved more distinctly is

a social reform framing of the project, whereby I became an advocate for the group. This

was something that evolved as I ventured out into the community seeking support and

assistance with aspects of our work. The advocating I did seemed to spill over into other

corners of the town, most notably the local press and the Canadian Mental Health

Association. While the project’s major focus was upon the evolution and empowerment

242

of the group and its members, there was the desire to inform and broaden the perceived

practice of the local community.

Through experiencing the evolution of the work and its participants within the

performance and receiving personal feedback from audience and cast, the overwhelming

reaction was positive. To cast my mind back to the earliest days when cast members were

nervous and unsure through to their “out there” public community performances and their

sense of reconnecting to their abilities, confidence and deeper senses of self was

humbling for me to witness. There is a vicarious sense of satisfaction and

accomplishment that comes from this work…that there is, as cast members have stated,

power in accomplishment – and in deep ways a renewed sense of efficacy as an

individual. This is the common bond that emerged among everyone in the group and

which changed me in very personal and intimate ways.

The last aspect relating to identity is that there is strength when working across

social difference. There is at the same time a sense of legitimacy for one’s marginal

location. Within this experience, as I grew to understand increasingly intimate and

personal dynamics of living with mental diversity, there was a profound resonance with

aspects of mental disorder and my sources of difference of my own rural sensibility,

queerness and Black ethnicity encased in my own Othering self. As the cast divulged

aspects of living with mental disorder and, in particular, others’ reactions to this a

commonality …a resonance emerged with my hidden sources of difference. We

discussed notions of the “closet,” “allies,” “passing” or “fitting in”, “pride, ”the need to

soften others’ responses to our “difference” by trying to hide the offending bits,

“normalcy,” “illness,” “coming out,” “stigma,” “reclaiming and reconfiguring power of

243

language,” “constructing all negative behaviour as part of the ‘disease’, “ “mainstream

privilege,” “medical authorities,” “oppression,” “ability to marry,” “ability to have/raise a

family,” “internalized hatred” among other social constructions that served to push the

margins away from “infecting” mainstream norms. Knowing that we shared similar

sources of stigma and oppression allowed for bridges of understanding to be traversed. I

had a sense of what it felt like to be put down because of a difference that was largely

socially determined. That did not mean that I presumed to know experiences that were

related in the group, but there was an openness to share awareness; to be accepted and to

learn from one another. The ability to empathize with one another also allowed for a

greater spontaneity and exploration of fullness of one’s voice without being judged.

Acts of Silence; Stillness As Voice

Within the experience of this experience the sharing and listening to one another’s

voice and body allowed each in a group to speak far more loudly. As cast members

understood, as was reinforced by their ability to speak, being a lone voice is just lonely.

A voice born out of a collective seems to make articulation within the group individually

stronger, thereby making the chorus more focused and powerful. The container that was

the weekly meeting became our rite of cleansing, power, identification, intensification,

and of change created by and for the group to find individual and collaborative

expression. The experimentation and tentativeness of speaking freely and imaginatively

was encouraged and supported by one another. Discussions became those of ideas…and

most importantly of futures. For many within the group they were lone individuals who

often were faced by the silencing effects of authorities presuming to know rather than

asking or communicating with. In the project each person could and did say, “No, I

244

disagree, I think we should do this.” Story directions often took many different paths until

the final performance was actually realized. Elements of risk and of playing were quickly

embraced by the clients, though non-clients were less willing to freely speak of

themselves. They were more concerned about process and about hearing clients’ stories

in a space that welcomed everyone’s tales. With regard to not hearing non-clients’ voices,

the fullness of the group was never completely realized. I suspected part of this self-

silencing may have something to do with a “professional” stance that is fostered within

professions that demanded “objectivity” through listening and control of process be

maintained. With performative inquiry the multitude of exchanges in relationship to one

another allows for a subjective-objectivity to emerge that is born through the focus of the

participants. While speaking about individual oppressions and stigma, members

normalized diversity so that the notion of “mental pride” emerged and was portrayed in

the performance. I felt a part of my own “gay pride” might have been carried in that

moment of “look folks, this is who I am and I, as a human being, am proud.” Through our

social difference we learned about different experiences and a deeper meaning to what it

meant to be human, to exist within oppression, silencing, and stigma.

Because of high levels of ambiguity and chaos that was an aspect of this

performative inquiry, voices had to carry messages of trust and respect. Even during odd

moments of verbal “violence” through unintentional put-downs, reactions were couched

in tones of understanding and respect. When boundaries had been breached, rather than

attack, the reaction was one of informing and sharing in the experience of how it felt to

be transgressed by one of the group. In responding to relatively minor exchanges of

silencing, individuals were able to speak out, and in that performative moment found a

245

level of power. The same, it turned out, occurred to me, in particular, during my

conversation with a local psychiatrist. He “requested” that aspects of the performance be

changed because the particularities of his history were not reflected in the broader canvas

of psychiatry’s evolution relayed during the performance. His was an unrelenting focus

of getting rid of or radically changing the past events of psychiatry, despite my sourcing

of information being from a noted historian in the field and philosopher (Foucault, 1964;

Porter 2000; 2002). My initial discomfort with confrontation was compounded with being

challenged by someone who I saw as having a very high degree of privilege and some

heavy-handed and state-sanctioned power in the form of defining mental “deviance” and

gate-keeping normalcy. During the early stages of our conversation I could not get past

this implicit power; something I immediately understood must have profound effects

upon those who rely upon these authorities to become labelled ‘normal’ (something that

in practice rarely if ever occurs; the label and stigma remain usually for life). Part of me,

particularly my homosexual aspect, did not want to be “judged” as abnormal; some

histories don’t get erased quickly. But I stayed the course; after which, I felt strangely

empowered that I could stand my ground to such an authority AND maintain some sense

of mutually respectful relationship. I had found my voice to speak with my own sense of

autonomy. I had faced a fear in that authority and found that I was left whole.

This may seem strange to admit, as I write this from within the apparent privilege

and position of relative power that comes from within a doctoral program; however, my

own history of being ridiculed, physically and verbally gay-bashed for who I am, has left

profound scarring that I have felt less comfortable exposing face to face, preferring to

write about among pages, or perform in the familiar safety of theatre. I can understand

246

empathetically, even sympathetically, with the struggles those in the group experienced

as they gathered the courage to speak up and out. When Tallulah spoke of meeting herself

on stage and liking whom she met, that resonated deeply with me because of my own

comfort with performing and escaping through explorations of self in an imaginative and

performative inquiring process.

My location as teacher had shifted from hiding behind the developmental process

of playing devil’s advocate and verbal jousting without revealing directly anything about

who I am to, in this project, the deeply human and intimate contact required using a more

nurturing eye. There was an intense ethic of caring about the whole person that

permeated the group’s sense of collective nurturing. From watching and interacting

with/in the cast, (re)gaining one’s voice is an early stage toward developing relationships

of power and identity (see Figure 15).To speak is to be noticed, which in turn creates

interpretation in others of the performer. Acts of interpretation are performances of

knowledge. And as Foucault (1972) espouses, knowledge is power. However the starting

point of knowledge is in the creation of relationships as in the: VOICE – IDENTITY –

POWER - triad.

How one finds his or her voice is often unintentionally – through the randomness

of chaos that is the serendipity of experience, acts of experimenting and creating – the

creating-doing-being described by enactivist literature. There needs to be an earlier

moment… the instant of playing. While games and acts of playing have structures often

constructed through “rules” or norms – like the container of our weekly theatre rituals -

there is a great space for random chaos that results in creating – having fun can take place

247

anywhere, with only bodies in awareness. One of the real experiments with which the

group experienced was the random playing with their embodied voices.

The engaging nature of physicality and whole person language helped to remove

the performative act of speaking from solely within one’s head to include, body, emotion,

memory, interactions, spirituality, energies and through relationships. Often individuals

rely upon verbal language skills to communicate; however, this usually results in a

surface and polite treatment of any topic; keeping the locus of control in the head rather

than in the body. When there was commitment to one’s position, there was embodied

action and communication. There remains much resonance with the idea: Actions speak

louder than words. With this group’s interaction with the local community, through the

physicality of the cast’s presence and stories created in a playful way, a deeper

experience and awareness was realized than if a story was printed or each member recited

something.

It is not always important to be heard vocally, but it is critical to be heard through

relationships. Much of the performance was not solo in nature but was the result of many

ongoing and shifting interactions. Many discussions and physical interchanges, where

many single voices were present, created a more powerful communication than if each

person spoke alone. When the audience was involved with performance, through lighting

of candles and responding to the Joker figure, their actions added to the overall power of

the piece presented by the group.

Constructing Power During Transgression

An early danger appeared when beginning to work with this group; a hazard that I

suspect appears somewhat frequently in this type of work. The act of “facilitating”

248

popular theatre can also be a form of oppression. When working with people who have

lived or are currently living within repression exercised by powerful authorities, just as

within Goffman’s book Asylum, a culture of indoctrination can become the norm. There

were echoes of this when cast demands early on asked repeatedly what I was looking for.

For both counsellors and clients alike there was this need for the known before we found

the end of our journey. If I told the group what I was looking for (and if I had known!)

and when we had achieved what I was looking for, the work and explorations would not

have been theirs, but my own. Similar dynamics are set up within social research

interviews. Occasionally I transcribe for others and the practices of leading questions and

presumptions of what others will answer is reminiscent of this; they are interviewing

themselves while silencing the interviewee. This would have been my show and the cast

would have remained silenced and oppressed, once again. Interestingly, the client

members within the cast grew to become confident in exploring and welcoming what

they uncovered, offering this up to the rest of the cast for consideration and inclusion.

There was a constant, yet subtle tug-of-war being played out in the background

between order and predictability among the counsellors and the move toward more open,

risky, and random pathways. One of the non-clients (who had a more formulaic or

“recipe” belief in popular theatre) had commented about the high degree of flexibility

needed to work with a group new to theatre; that to prescribe directions in isolation of

where the member were or where they were interested in travelling, created resistance

and could shut down the process. Others felt that there needed to be an up-front,

purposeful, predictable order as to how the group moved through the overall process and

individual sessions. With performative inquiry as my viewfinder and the tools/approaches

249

of popular theatre there was greater comfort in the freedom of working within the

rehearsal ritual that was negotiated. Some non-clients remained frustrated throughout

because of the lack of knownness beforehand that they were faced with. I do not feel that

they were entirely satisfied with my position of “not knowing.” The knowledge to be

shared was not my awareness alone. Because of this ambiguity, the non-clients were not

automatically placed in a position of power, through knowledge they had and the clients

did not. This placed the counsellors in a position similar to that of the clients. Perhaps this

was too unfamiliar… and therefore risky. The placement of power known in professional

practices versus the more egalitarian ability to influence one another was a struggle for

some non-clients. I found the social worker who had come with the Open Door members

and who had some background in Freire and popular theatre was most comfortable and

trusting of the process. Something for me to consider in future projects is including

support workers who are familiar with popular education/theatre processes rather than

those who have a background and framework of traditional counselling methods. This

guide of course would have the exception for those who want to join to learn and

understand more performative methods of group-in-theatre processes. I felt I could not

place myself in the position of knower of outcomes or overseer of the entire process. As

stated before, my role was to loosely create a container and rough structure within which

the group explored, played and created their own pathways through learning and

awareness generation that led to the performance and what followed. As Bette’s

metaphor of cooking suggested, when things got slopped over the sides, someone in the

cast would do what s/he could to keep things in the bowl…

250

I have rarely been directive in my own teaching (except in the rare instance of

crisis), preferring to collaborate and work within relationships with students. Power

becomes more diffuse; responsibility and respect becomes shared. This was as it was

within this experience, and within the popular theatre project that has since followed

Shaken: Not Disturbed…with a twist! this has become increasingly so. There is power in

decision-making; to hold this process too closely is to lose everything in its grasp.

Having just made the comment I did, many of the administrative details were left

for me to figure out. Early on feedback was made that some of the project’s dynamics

had to change to meet the needs of the clients: these were left for me to resolve. What I

discovered was that having control over the mundane administration that kept the project

going (more control than necessarily power), is not the same as having power within the

group. The cast understood why I was exploring their lives and creating theatre; that my

goal was my writing this dissertation. But as time passed, they often did disagree with

each other, them with me, and vice versa. Power among us seemed to move fairly freely

throughout the relationships that were formed, rather than simply reside with one person.

With a group of professionals and users/clients within the mental health system that is a

success in its own right.

There were moments when non-client members were obviously frustrated in not

being able to work in the chaos or apparent randomness that is fundamental to this

methodology. Much of this became played out within the dress rehearsal. We had invited

members and social workers from Open Door as a small audience in front of which the

group performed for practice, as well as to iron out any bumps in the show. As is typical

for dress rehearsals in my own history, a chaotic dress rehearsal typically meant a smooth

251

opening night; a smooth dress rehearsal often spelled disaster. Cues went long, lighting

glitches, costume changes, etc. all rendered a long dress rehearsal, which provided a lot

of time to really go over details for each cast member. Much was cleared up; however, a

couple of non-clients were not happy. One person had stated that one particular costume

change was taking way too long and should be cut. Tallulah, whose costume change it

was, was upset. She demanded that she be allowed to make the costume change because

the clothing elements she changed into (that of a street person who had been “liberated”

from the social assistance system) was an important message for her to get out to the

people. There were “words” between her and non-clients. I re-stated that this show was

for the cast, all of us, to speak publicly. If Tallulah wanted this message said in this way,

then it needed to be. To create the time for the change I stepped in with a brief history

piece to speak to the audience before Tallulah reappeared and the situation was resolved.

Some non-clients, then, demanded that we postpone the show because they felt the group

was not ready. The other non-clients came over to discuss this with me, leaving the

clients in the cast to look on. I stood my ground and said that the outward appearance of

the show was disorganization but I had faith in the cast, and that we would have another

rehearsal before the show to fine-tune. It was my standing up for the cast that then

created the cast to step forward and say that they were ready to go. They wanted to do

this and that if I said we were ready and I had faith in them then they would believe in

themselves as well and they would be ready. Having someone stand up for the cast was a

“radical” moment in the process, something that struck some in the cast.

As it turned out we didn’t have a full rehearsal again before the show because the

“leads” in the play didn’t show up. We did do a cue-to-cue for those who were there just

252

to reinforce how the (improvisational) show would run the night of our one-off

performance. Still, there remained nervousness; however, the clients and I did our best to

reassure the sceptics. For that brief moment power/resistance had fallen out to become

concentrated between the clients and non-clients; but most importantly, the clients saw

that their ability to “stand up” for themselves achieved what they wanted. In this situation

I feel that I was speaking alongside the clients in the cast members rather than for them. I

believe this because they were with me when I initially spoke and then when they spoke

up I “back away.” This does not mean that the non-clients who resisted were silenced

because ultimately, having stated their concerns, they believed in the work.

Because of the wrangling behind the scenes and within the group, rarely did

power sit or emerge from one person, but was evoked through relationships among

people. The group’s ability to produce was a cohesive strength that could have come only

from a relationship of relative equals. Collectives were comprised of reciprocal bonds. As

knowledge emerged within the group of/for itself, so did the influence that was uniquely

its own. As was experienced during moments of tension, power was given up creating

imbalances in some way, more than it was created and destroyed. There was fluidity in

the exercise of authority rather than a cycle of build and ruin.

Based upon the counsellors’ need to know beforehand there was a myth that to

always be foretold was always a position of strength. There is power of resistance in

ambiguity, risk, silence, and chaos as well. In a world that is built upon information that

definitively circumscribes the world, the transgression of taken-for-granted presumptions

serves to resist by opening up, not foreclosing possibilities. This “teasing out” is an aim

of popular theatre and of performative inquiry. Rather than presume to know the end

253

point of each step in the process and closing out possibilities, the move was to resist that

by opening up possibilities through play. Further, the group discovered the power of

ritual, both as we had constructed each weekly meeting, and as we had unpacked various

“invisible” social rituals that had victimized them in their lives, within the show, can be

liberating when put in the hands of the people.

The ripple effects of influence as a result of what occurred in the group washed

against community barriers, slowly eroding fixed social perceptions. There was power

within the performance exercised by the group, and as these citizens continue to offer

additional theatre productions that portray lives lived within mental diversity, gradually

the normalization process that occurred within this marginalized group will evolve within

the larger community.

Within this activity, power ● authority ● control, have all played supporting roles.

When first embarking on a performative inquiry/popular theatre project and there is

direction to include counsellors within the group, there really needs to be considered

thought about who becomes invited in as an ally. My experience included half the cast

being student counsellors or professional counsellors/social workers. The most ongoing

challenge with regard to power and control rested within the counsellor/non-client group.

Spreading authority, as it has been defined with this project was a collective

collaboration; all were equally responsible for speaking up. Direction was something I

hoped would be shared, with power made more diffuse; yet the tension that resulted from

among the non-client cast members who wanted me to have a clear purpose. They wanted

me to provide specific motivation that prescribed closed pathways with regard to each

session. Once this higher, prescriptive control was in place, they wanted to have a

254

comparable level of this newer envisioned control for the progress over the group. The

aim for me, however, with regard to power was collective. As I had imagined the

embeddedness of the counsellors, they were to be equal to all participants while being

available for any of the client/cast members who needed help during a particular topic or

meeting. As time progressed, the non-clients wanted more influence, while keeping the

responsibility within me. The most resistant and control-seeking individual was given the

task of timing the length of each scene and of transitions in between. This was a job that

she had asked to do. The result was a very detailed (she brought in a stop watch)

breakdown of the timing of production elements. While she was monitoring our progress

through her monitoring of the watch, there was never any further discussion about

“needing to know.” I presume that having control of some element was really what she

may have been seeking all along. Selecting allies that understand and function well

within ambiguity and who have a similar perspective and approach is important.

Interestingly, the person I invited in was the one that provided the most challenge; while

the individual who arrived with the clients was the most supportive, dynamic, and in

synch with the overall drift of the group and the process of theatre-making.

What I was not aware of something at the time was how important my role was

within a role-modelling context. My power within the group resided within my position

as prodder and guide. Through interviews with cast members, I discovered the degree of

constant surveillance I had been under. When I heard that the psychiatrists, who had

come to watch the show, were deeply angered, I initially felt like I needed to apologize.

Through reflection I realized that the stories and experiences relayed were the group

members’ lives. My readings of disability studies had shown that disabled people were,

255

by far, the most silenced and marginalized groups in society, with those living with

psychiatric disabilities the most deeply closeted. So to speak out, even quietly, may be

experienced as a scream. Our performance was a holler, so the sound must have been

deafening, simply because of who was giving voice to story. I left messages with

psychiatrists I knew who were at the show, but no one returned my contacts for months.

When asked about this medical response, by the cast, I replied that I was heartened; to

receive a passionate response either for or against meant the voices of the group had been

taken seriously. Their stories mattered. That answer was the response the performing

learners wanted to hear because these psychiatrists held a lot of power over their lives. If

I caved in and became apologetic, the effect of the whole experience could have been

taken as quite negative. Every moment I was in the group there were little things

members noticed about me as lightening rod, that I had no idea about until after the fact.

Like an actor on a stage, I had to be “on” every week, to send the right signals, to do the

correct things while also admitting when I made a mistake – when starting out the

pressure can be high. Over time, as I became more comfortable and confident in myself

in relation to the group, my often self-imposed stress lifted. While some within the

mental health field was reactive and less supportive, the general practitioners and general

community were thrilled with our work. The group had been invited to present at the

local fringe festival for several performances in the fall of 2003 with rave reviews from a

very generous local press. Having broad-based community support is very important for

any marginalized group, and for any future efforts that are being planned.

To live with chaos, trust in one’s learners and hold on to faith…well I learned my

big lesson from the group.

256

It will be what it iss meant to be.

Have faith

In the process

In the community or group

And in yourself…

In some ways this cast was more challenging that I had anticipated. There were

the power issues described earlier. The limitations upon energy and longer time to

process things, while minor, still had shifted the dynamics of the journey in substantial

ways through change of venue, times of meetings and the overall period the group could

commit to the process. What was lacking in hours we made up in the delight of the cast’s

animation, playfulness, spontaneity, risk-taking, openness, trust, and willingness to

venture. Everyone who appeared on stage took shared responsibility for the performance

seriously. This became particularly true during the last two weeks leading up to the

production’s presentation. The cast arrived early to set up and take down the set, and

worked out a system whereby their visual cues of character signs were arranged

systematically and easily. Cast members helped one another to change for various scenes

and the whole group began to quickly come together as an ensemble. The care that was

extended to one another fostered the ability to continue taking risks. When I continued to

see examples of this I learned to let go. I could understand, in those moments, why it can

be difficult for care-givers to let go of those they help. When I found that I could step

back and have faith, I could join the cast in their sense of freedom and flights into the

murkiness of the unknown with them; an experience we all found mesmerizing.

257

Through performative inquiry, the depth of emotional investment in the

explorations was intense. What is being mined is profoundly personal: experiences,

dreams, desires, histories, and secrets all contain huge purchases of feeling. When

working within the random complexity of lives lived there are moments of revelation

cocooned within emotional senses. This investment was much more intense for people

living with mental disorder because what is taken in is a much more raw and immediate

read of what occurred. Related to the colourings and interpretations of feelings was the

complex interactivity of one’s embodiment containing physical, spiritual, personality,

cognitive, existential, and memory work. As the environment triggered aspects there were

reverberations ricocheting through many interconnections. How these various systems

took in messages through acts of knowledge, to be interpreted and acted upon, I am not

aware…but I remain curious as to how the fullness of one’s bodymind and all its systems

and situatedness work in concert to develop awareness. In particular I am unsure how the

acts of random playing can influence understanding through bodies interacting.

Throughout my experience I found that working with mental adults was like

having one more body in the room; one that we could not see, but we could “feel” was

nearby. Mental disorder was like having another living presence within our space and

time, neither invited nor uninvited…just there… and we knew it. I am not suggesting it

was the proverbial “pink elephant” that people suggest within families implicated by

substance abuse. It is not that the entity is uninvited; it felt like there were people, like

me, being themselves, taking in playful experiences, and then there was this silent,

awkward other thing that we all acknowledged and worked with ….this invisibility

258

occasionally reached out to us. Perhaps there was shyness, or the unfamiliarity of being

welcomed, but this ethereal quality always insinuated itself in the midst of our voyages.

The magnifying effect of the rural location was demonstrated through the

audience interviews when a number of people had known the people on the stage,

particularly of the clients performing. The reactions of psychiatrists were felt through

many quarters of the community. This was perhaps when my position as outsider helped.

I was not tied with deep roots of history to the community, and therefore extensively

known (except perhaps among college students). This distance did not allow doctors to

coerce me through “knowing your family,” which I have experienced growing up in a

small farming community. Threatening retribution through familial or friendship

relationships could not; I was an unknown. How do deal with me became something of

an awkward moment for some from within mental health serves. Yet, the isolating aspect

of mental illness within the larger community remained quite evident, primarily through

how few of the more traditional theatre-going public attended the performance and the

relatively small number of people who were not in some way tied to the mental health

field or the people on stage.

The role of having an agency as an ally is critical in gaining community support

and legitimacy. The program many of the clients came from provided transportation…

something I had not thought would be necessary given that most of the cast lived within

blocks of the initial meeting space. When we moved to the high school, transportation

became critical. Without it participants would not have attended; in this Jean and Buster

were key. As Amelia stated,

259

Even if I lived across the street, I would still need to get to theatre with someone

else.

Having the agency ally, also opened up avenues to other community groups like a

care-givers’ society, the Canadian Mental Health Association, school boards, and other

theatre organizations. And lastly, something that was triggered by something Jimmi said

one night, very recently, helped me put a central aspect of my own learning, alongside the

cast’s, into focus.

Through a diagram I introduced in Chapter 6 I have been able to understand what

the cast of learners were, in part, looking for and what performative inquiry sought within

its open process. I have modified this conceptualization to place the three key players

within this experience in relation to one another: the cast, the community, and me. Figure

15 highlights the same aspects that have been described from the three locations, voice,

power, identity, as three important elements that support inclusion and empowerment.

Power and voice, alone, do not lead to understanding; power and identity alone, do not

lead to reciprocity; voice and identity alone do not lead to empowerment. Importantly,

hoe do the three, cast, audience, and me, relate? I’ve placed the audience in a position of

control because of who was represented among the spectators in relation to the cast:

caregivers, social workers, friends, family, medical practitioners, social workers, and

psychiatrists. Each has their own paradigm of what “normal” should look like; and each

shapes and influences the bodies and behaviours of those within the mental health

system. The cast as learners I have allied with the notion of respect…in that they are in a

position of often having to give deference, often in an obligatory way. I have also placed

understanding with the cast both as wanting to understand, and as wanting to be

260

understood. Of the three locations the cast-as-learners are in the most in-between place;

existing between the familiarity of the mental health system/their support networks, and

the place of freedom that I initiated with them. It cannot have been a comfortable place

knowing that often they faced the very people we critiqued in the show.

I, too, placed myself with notions of respect and understanding because I wanted

to be understood, by the cast in particular, and I wanted to understand the broader rural

community within which the cast came. My respect, as well, was focused more toward

the cast and its needs rather than solely the people in the town. I respected the awareness

and memories the cast brought into the group for one another. By focusing upon the

collective voice of the cast and moving toward identity and an emerging sense of

empowerment with the support of my role (identity) creates a bridging of understanding

261

CAST:RESPECTFUL

LEARNERSUNDERSTANDING

AUDIENCE ASREPRESENTATIVES

OF CONTROL

RESPECTFULFACILITATOR

UNDERSTANDIN

POWER

IDENTITY

VOICE

Figure 25: Locations of participants

between the margin and centre of the community. Between the audience-as-community

and me there was a reaching out in a reciprocal way. As I reached out for support, there

were cliques within that provided that assistance. The local press provided ample

exposure through news stories and even theatre reviews, the local private school provided

their gym at no cost, local town councils spread the word for us, the Canadian Mental

Health Association chapter endorsed the group, the fairgrounds board gave up their

poultry barn, a few social workers assisted us with labour, and the audience came with a

mountain of food, clothing, sports equipment, and money as its entry to the performance.

For our next production we continue to reach out into the community, working with

various partners.

Performative inquiry is an important tool in navigating the complex nature of

human relations in an embodied and mindful way. A negotiated balance involving

respect, control, and understanding, among everyone involved within popular theatre, has

to occur through reciprocity, empowerment, and understanding so that an integrated

community inclusive of diverse voices, identities, and power can co-exist.

Summary

Just as I have carried out with the adult learners within this project, and the

audience who attended the shows, I have reflected upon my own experience within this

chapter with regard to my own voice, identity, and power issues as we embarked on this

journey as co-researchers. Having a voice does not necessarily mean that one has to do

the speaking but through group interactions one’s voice becomes carried farther and with

more force: relationships create synergy. To work in a group as a cultural worker requires

the strength of one’s identity because there are many who rely upon that role to guide

262

them through ambiguity and risk. Power challenges come from both within and outside

the process, which is the “lightening rod” effect that I experienced. The use of allies in

the person of counsellors has to be very considered in that those professionals who rely

upon traditional counselling processes can become a barrier to group effectiveness;

however, those therapists and social workers who have a background in popular arts and

performance or a desire to learn within this realm… their allegiance to the process that

unfolds can be a welcome and supportive presence felt by all. Within team teaching the

same is true: working with an expert-knowledge driven instructor who believes in all

things need to be measured will undermine a colleague who practices open-ended,

ambiguous, and problem-posing education processes and vice versa.

The successes contained by this work far surpass the challenges, to the degree that

the group is embarked on a new cycle of popular theatre and performative inquiry within

exploring the linkages between at-risk youth behaviour and entry into the mental health

system as young adults….that, in part, is what I turn to in the next chapter…life after

Shaken: Not Disturbed…with a twist!

263