Personal experience as a teacher of theatre has led me to understand the cogently schizophrenic relationship between the experiential nature of the actor as subject-in-process, what Harrop refers to as "self-expressive" (Harrop 7) and the experiential nature of the actor as object-in-product, what Harrop terms "self-effacing" (Harrop 7). The challenge for the teacher lies, somehow, in keeping these two points balanced for the student, so that the condition of process is marked by moments product, either as vantage points from which to view the character being developed, or as the critical distance necessary to view process and its effect, or potential effect, on an audience. The passage between process and product is often blurred, yet movement back and forth between the two should not only be encouraged but ongoing: one informs the other which informs the first ad infinitum. No real boundary exists between the two, lest artificially created by some outside imposition. Yet, too often, pedagogical practices create and sustain boundaries, privileging one half of the equation over the other at the expense of one indispensable half and, invariably, at the expense of the learning experience.
In what concerns drama, a number of post-secondary institutions continue to grapple to find a satisfactory way in which to harmonise the teaching of theory and practice. A few institutions still actively encourage the segregation of the two, insisting on the distinctiveness of the pedagogical fields, despite the fact that numerous twentieth-century practitioners were (and still are) responsible for developing some of the most influential performance theories of our time - from Edward Gordon Craig at the turn of the century to Ariane Mnouchkine today. As the proximal relationship between the two so-called poles become more and more apparent, an increasing number of instructors make concerted efforts to create and to sustain a more integrated pedagogical praxis. Page translates to stage which develops theory.
Volume 19, number 2 is the last of the three theme issues launched two years ago by the Theatre Research in Canada/Recherches théâtrales au Canada. It began with my awareness of, and dissatisfaction with, systemic approaches to pedagogical practice that discouraged integration or marked certain approaches as "privileged." It was enhanced as I listened to a paper given by John Alex Hawkins at the annual conference for the Association for Canadian Theatre Research at Brock University. I realised a forum for discussion was needed and that it could best be served by dedicating an issue of this journal to an examination of the teaching of theatre and drama and what that entails. The papers which appear in this issue interrogate and renegotiate boundaries that formerly separated one kind of theatrical learning from another. They discuss pedagogical practices at most levels of instruction, from primary, to secondary, to post-secondary education.
LAWRENCE O'FARRELL debunks the concerns about secondary school education promoted by David Hornbrook and Peter Abbs. These Britons question the integrity of educational drama by arguing that process drama, what we would call drama-in-education, does not provide adequate instruction in the art of the theatre, whereas a focus on theatre as a discipline diminishes the integrity of the educational exercise. O'Farrell concedes that drama in a Canadian context is eclectic, drawing on three important sources: the one promoted by Peter Slade and Brian Wade which is developmental in nature and champions the growth of the student; the one promoted by Dorothy Heathcote and Gavin Bolton which uses improvisation to emphasise integrative and cognitive learning by a teacher working inside the collective creation; and, finally, the "anthology programme" developed by David Kemp of Queen's University whereby the students develop a collage of elements, united by a theme or concept, for performance.
DIANE SAINT JACQUES acknowledges that psychopedagogical terminology has precedence over theatrical terminology in some approaches to drama-in-education. Her article presents a theatrical understanding of the process of improvisational drama production by defining the mise en scène as structure (Pavis) which relates to means (movement, voice, image, sound) and to fictitious meanings (found both in the role and story line). Through an analysis of pre-service drama teacher productions, the author identifies two levels of production: activation (mise en action) and fictionalization (mise en fiction). While clearly distinct from production (mise en scene), activation and fictionalization remain linked to it.
JOHN ALEX HAWKINS offers an historical explanation as to why so few skilled professional actors are placed at the apex of the hierarchical triangle whereas the educated masses find themselves placed at its base and in its service. Using Hart House as the earliest Canadian model for the "professional" paradigm, Hawkins lists the items perceived to be at the heart of professionalism - exclusiveness, privilege, class-consciousness, commercialism, sophistication, and elitism. Professional theatre, he claims, promotes a canon of established classics, legitimises a certain style of acting, and engenders middle-class values. His paper interrogates these traditional assumptions and their affect on professional theatre training in our post-secondary institutions by questioning their validity in the face of a co-operative or fringe model.
RICHARD PAUL KNOWLES with the Pedagogies Working Group, Centre for Cultural Studies at the University of Guelph propose anti-hegemonic strategies based on Freire to argue in favour of alternative pedagogies in theatre and drama studies that are collaborative, interdisciplinary, self-reflexive, and site specific. The progressive principles posited here aim at the demystification and interrogation of the boundaries that divide areas of drama and theatre studies, specifically criticism, theory, workshops, rehearsals, and acting. The process favoured by Knowles and the Pedagogies Working Group is one that attempts to deflate power relationships and their effects; its intention is to foreground and negotiate difference in the classroom.
WARREN LINDS offers readers a look into the power structure of racism. By exploring power-related themes in the drama classroom and in workshop situations, Linds develops interactive performance pieces based on Augusto Boal's Power Play and Forum Theatre techniques. Linds begins with the premise that the transformation of participants and spectators begins through the acquisition of aesthetic knowledge. It is Linds belief that Boal's approach allows participants and spectators alike to learn through the theatrical experience they share.
In our Forum section, four young professionals examine the state of the teaching profession such as it stands today. JENNIFER HARVIE comments on the paucity of new tenure-track positions, despite the growing number of graduate students and the increase in retirements by senior professors. The topics Harvie examines centre on shrinking university budgets, the deep freeze on hiring, temporary employment situations for recent graduates, the glut of new graduates for few positions, the increasing demand by employers for graduates with interdisciplinary skills, the prospect of little job security. Harvie offers advice to help prepare new graduates for the field.
ERIN HURLEY tackles the topic of new graduates and interdisciplinarity, pointing out that most employers expect young scholars to be able to work in any number of areas immediately upon hire. Embracing the idea, Hurley proposes that an interdisciplinary approach to theatre/performance studies could help create a precise vocabulary for the field. Curricula and exams, she suggests, could be approached in new and exciting ways.
CARRIE LOFFIE contends that the primary goal of graduate school programmes should be intellectual stimulus, not marketability. That said, Loffie readily admits that marketability should be a by-product of one's education. Loffie offers a number of suggestions as to how one can gain practical experience in the field as a graduate student while pursuing one's intellectual goals.
Last but not least, SHELLEY SCOTT takes a critical look at the Graduate Centre For Study of Drama at the University of Toronto from the time of its inception to today. She takes note of the drastically diminished (and diminishing) budgets over the years, the loss of the Hart House theatre, the startling decrease in tenure-track appointments, the inability for the Centre to offer a wide range of courses due to retirements, the falling number of available scholarships, the ever-increasing student enrolment numbers but limited job market, steadily growing tuition fees and the elimination of a post-programme fee schedule. A lack of connection with professional worlds, theatrical or academic, lead graduates to feel isolated. Scott makes a plea to resist the market-model mentality and encourages members of academe to integrate and to guide graduate students into the profession.
WORKS CITED
Harrop, John. Acting. London: Routledge, 1994.