Community theatre

Community theatre: Context and Ideology
Samuel Ravengai
What is a community? George Marcus sees community as a group of people residing
in the same cultural space with a ‘sense of shared values, shared identity, and thus
shared culture’ (1992:315). Homogeneity is a key element of communal identities.
Communal identities are particularly well developed in rural areas. In the city a
community becomes an entity with shared economic and social conditions that bind
people together particularly in a space where the gap between the rich and the poor
is wide such as South Africa which is second after Brazil. Communal feelings do
persist in the townships. Even though community can be defined the term
community theatre/popular theatre is an elusive or slippery term. There are
contrasting views about what it is as evidenced by a plethora of names/terms used
amongst practitioners and scholars – all describing the same phenomenon:
development theatre, theatre for development, popular theatre, community
theatre, participatory theatre, theatre for the people, people’s theatre (Frank 1995:
10), majority theatre, committed theatre, contestatory theatre (Solberg 1999: 1),
democratic theatre (Udenta 1993), people’s theatre, revolutionary theatre,
(Chifunyise, Kavangh, wa Mirii 1993).

Studies in Community theatre have developed in three main branches
 Theatre that operates within tough commercial framework of urban
economies
 Social development – often – though not always concerned with rural
projects
 Political/revolutionary potential of community theatre
Obviously these are not separate independent entities but ‘centres of dynamism’
always fluctuating, shifting and overlapping categories. A group may operate
commercially and also do plays on social development and political consciousness.
The kind of theatre for development proposed by Mlama links the second and third
categories

Popular theatre may be seen as an effort to develop a type of theatre that is relevant to
people’s life and struggle as opposed to the theatre of entertainment and abstraction from
reality of the dominant classes. Here theatre is used not only to develop theatre as a form
of cultural expression, but also, and more significantly, as a tool for improving life in its
totality. Theatre becomes a process through which man studies and forms an opinion
about it and acquires the frame of mind necessary for him to take action to improve upon
it. As such, theatre is economic, social, political – indeed life itself (Mlama 1991: 16)

Community theatre here serves as an ideological tool in both a social and political
struggle. The boundaries between what is social and what is political blur. The
difference is of content, but the ideology remains the same. Frank divides the second
branch of community theatre (social development) into two subcategories
1. Project – oriented plays: performed to implement a concrete improvement in
the life of the community eg building a house (RDP). The minister of human
settlements in SA contracted a group to raise consciousness in the area of
urban housing.
2. Theatre for consciousness raising/Campaign theatre.

1 © Samuel Ravengai.2010. Community Theatre Lecture Notes

What is ideology? Is there any theatre that is not ideologically driven? An ideology
defined broadly is ‘more or less coherent set of values and beliefs used to describe
and maintain images of the world. Among the most important functions of an
ideology is control over image management… Ideologies shape subjective realities
primarily through influencing the selection of information and the weight given to
single facts and processes (i.e. the degree of correctness and representativeness
ascribed to the information (Shlapentokh and Shlapentokh, 1993: 11-12). According
to Andrew Horn (1997) all art – be it ‘high’ art of the intelligentsia, the popular
commercial art produced for mass consumption, the critical art of both the
progressive and the reactionary , or the folk art of traditional cultures – serves the
ends of some sector of society. Which side does community theatre serve? Ngugi wa
Thiong’o argues that any art cannot escape from the class power structures that
shape our lives. The artist has a choice whether to be on the side of the people or on
the side of social forces and classes that oppress the people. There is no position of
neutrality. Ngugi wa Thiong’o asserts that ‘every writer is a writer in politics. The
only question is what and whose politics’ (cited in Udenta 1993: iv). This can be
taken to mean that every artiste takes an ideological position. Ideologically, on which
side is community theatre?
 It takes the position and worldview of the working class, peasants and
the lumpen proletariat. It sees the world these people see it. It looks
at their failures, triumphs, setbacks and achievements. It takes
working class ideology.
 Though not substitute for action community theatre is a carrier of
social values, a galvaniser of the people, a raiser of their
consciousness.
 It depicts positive heroes bringing out their humanistic elements, their
courage and disappointments.
 Democratisation of language – usually in an African language.
 It applies forms which people know and with which they are familiar.
It builds on cultural traditions and forms of expression through which
the given society is accustomed to communicate
 It utilises local communal and indigenous dramaturgical resources like
the rejection of the proscenium theatre in favour of open arena
performances, a combination of dance-drama music.
 It utilises the audience as participants. It fuses performance and
audience organically. The answers to questions arsing from the play
originate in the same forum that pose the questions. With the help of
discussions one arrives at the topics that the group would like to
consider.

Community theatre and Western (Aristotelian) Theatre
Among scholars on African theatre, the Aristotelian poetics is one of the most
fiercely attacked western aspects and considered to be the root of problems in
African performance (Ravengai, 2001; van Erven, 1991; Etherton, 1982). Aristotelian
theatre is viewed as an artistic mirror of a capitalist consumer culture that upholds
the political status quo. Diana Belshaw (2008) has argued that scripted plays of the


Aristotelian tradition disempowered performers from other ethnic backgrounds who
don’t necessarily create their theatre using its principles. She argues that the
devising method allows each person to bring in something from their life and this is a
creative aspect that is at the heart of community theatre.

Western (Aristotelian) Theatre Community Theatre
Product Process
Script improvisation (devising)
Written oral
Audience watches audience participates/experiential
Dialogue potpourri: dance, mime, song, drama
Usually a European language usually an African language
Elitist popular
Catharsis empowering/liberating

Models or Approaches to Community Theatre
1. The Travelling theatre approach
In Africa, travelling theatres were initiated by Universities with the aim of breaking
away from the urban based theatre inherited from colonialism. This is literally taking
theatre to the people and has been tried in Ibadan, Makerere, Nairobi, Malawi, and
Zambia. The travelling theatre group might or might not organise workshops for and
hold discussions with its audiences; the important point is that the audiences – who
are the community – are not involved and do not participate in the playmaking
process. However, with some luck, the travelling theatre group might just inspire
theatre groups in the communities visited. The University of Nairobi Travelling
Theatre, for example, did influence the development of theatre in the country and
strengthened the development towards theatre at the Kamiriithu Community
Educational and Culture Centre.
2. The outside Team Workers Approach
The second approach is when a group of people goes to a community, stays with
that community, listens to and observes the people’s main problems and concerns,
exchanges opinions with the people and then goes back to base to make a play on
what were seen as the major themes arsing out of the discussions and observations.
The resulting play is then brought back to the community – written and acted by
people from outside. The usual discussion after the play might be tacked in.
3. The Participatory Approach
Alternatively, the same group as above comes to the community and listens to the
community’s problems, discusses and observes. However, instead of moving away
from the community to evolve and make a play around the issues arising out of the
community, the group stays with the community with whom it makes the plays. A
much higher level of community participation is when the community itself takes the
initiative to create theatre and invites people outside their community as was the
case in Kenya with the Kamirithu Community Education and Cultural Centre (KCECC).
Evaluation of the three approaches


The first two approaches have been tried in Botswana, Ghana, Sierra Leone, Zambia,
Swaziland, Malawi and Tanzania and earlier in Kenya and Uganda. The major
weakness of these approaches is their failure to involve people and to tap the
people’s creative potentialities, cultural strengths and to develop their awareness of
their environment. And though the second approach purports to reflect problems
seen in the community, the representation of these problems is nonetheless as they
are seen by the theatre workers – not as the people see them. The process of
playmaking does not involve the community’s participation, therefore the
community is not afforded the chance to ask itself why things have happened the
way they have - and yet again why? The community has little opportunity to develop
its own artistic and cultural skills.
The above two approaches’ limitations are particularly glaring when theatre is used
by extension workers to propagate specific and localised narrow ‘developmentalist’
messages to do with health, literacy, agriculture, etc. the failure to involve the
community in intensive discussion and in the evolving of the play as well as denying
the community the chance to develop its artistic and cultural talents also leads to the
following:
1. Top to bottom solution. The community is forced to accept uncritically and
without thought whatever development solutions are offered by extension
workers. Thus their initiative is emasculated. The people are still the passive
and dependent recipients of ‘aid’ from outside denied the chance to become
the active participants in, the subjects and not objects, the makers and not
consumers of, their own history and destiny.
2. Solutions do not challenge the status quo. The so called ‘pragmatic’ and
technical solutions fail to answer such vital questions as: does the community
have material means to afford a consultation with a medical doctor? If not
why? And why again? Looked at this way, it obvious that even seemingly
simple problems cannot be seen in isolation from the historical, national and
international socio-economic context.
3. This kind of theatre does not raise the political understanding of the people.
And, appearances notwithstanding, it does not help in the transformation of
people’s lives.
4. Because of its prescriptive nature and failure to involve the people, it is
doubtful that the people will be inspired enough to organise their own
theatre groups and develop a dynamic theatre tradition. It is usually a one
time affair.
The third approach (the participatory approach) has been found to the more
meaningful approach and the one that is able to fully mobilise a community as the
KCECC in Kenya testifies. This is because:
1. Involvement of the people empowers them as they take part in finding
solutions to their own problems. It frustrates the dependency syndrome
(depending on outsiders). Normally when these outsiders leave the
community, the process fails because of the community’s inculcated sense of
dependency.
2. The involvement of the community in the theatre process in all its stages
inevitably leads to the community analysing the problems that it confronts,
how these manifest themselves and what effect they have on the


community. Thus this method is more educational for the people. Before an
issue can be enacted the people dig deeper in the historical causes of their
material condition. This helps them to sharpen their critical perspective and
to become more constructively responsive to national issues. Thus the
process of playmaking becomes an educational and politicising experience.
3. The people become transformed by this experience. The playmaking process
taps and develops their artistic skills and talents, and makes them discover
other latent potentialities. And because the theatre experience demands that
their feelings and thoughts be involved, they become more sensitised to their
history and to the current national issues.
4. The discipline and organisational structure which necessarily arise out of this
experience teaches people organisational skills and encourages them to take
initiatives and control these structures. This also helps to dynamise their
collective life.
5. This process, once it takes hold in the community, complements the formal
education of the community.
The Participatory Approach Model –
Kamiriithu Community Education and Cultural Centre: Monitoring and Evaluation
The two terms monitoring and evaluation are not synonymous. Monitoring is
normally done during the progress of the project by way of systematic collection and
analysis of information with the aim of improving efficiency and effectiveness of a
project. This may not be possible for a project that was done in 1977. Evaluation is
the comparison of actual project impacts against the agreed strategic plan, which is
done either during the life of the project after the project as some kind of an
autopsy. What did the kamiriithu project intend to achieve? What did it accomplish
and how did it accomplish it? However, both monitoring and evaluation are geared
towards learning from what one is doing and how s/he is doing it by focussing on
three issues:
1. Efficiency: is the input (time, money, staff, equipment etc) into the work
corresponding with output?
2. Effectiveness: a measure of the extent to which a project achieves its
objectives
3. Impact: whether or not the process of creating theatre and the theatrical
event made a difference to the problem situation that the animateurs were
trying to address.
What can be said about the above issues? After opening on the 2nd of October 1977
to a paying audience the project was an immediate success in terms of audience
attendance. Audiences did not only come from Kamiriithu, but from surrounding
areas. The press has been talking about the project ever since and many books and
dissertations have been written about the project. The banning of the project by the
Kenyan government created a backlash which gave life to the project after its
demise. The government publicised it by banning it. Many projects which were
influenced by Kamiriithu followed – Mother Sing for Me (1982), Kamiriithu musical
drama (1982) which was banned including all theatre activities in the entire area of
Limuru, Vihiga Cultural Festival in western Kenya. As a response to what the people
wanted President Daniel Arap Moi visited the area in 1984 and donated money to


build a polytechnic college to teach the villagers vocational skills to deal with
poverty.

The Kamiriithu village is located in Limuru – 30 or so kilometres from Nairobi. It was
established in the 1950s by the British colonial administration as a
‘keep/concentration camp’ to cut off links between the people and the Mau Mau
guerrillas. After independence in 1963 the village remained intact this time serving
as a dormitory village for cheap labour for various companies, factories, plantations
and farms in Limuru. Kamiriithu village had a population of about 10 000 people. It
had a dilapidated Youth Centre (in an open area covering four acres) which was used
as an adult education centre and was run by peasants, workers, a school teacher and
a businessman. The community realised it needed to resuscitate its creative vibrancy
and to learn more about its history and how it could overcome forces against it.
Ngugi wa Thiong’o was approached in 1976 by a Kamiriithu woman who asked him
to be involved in the development of the village through creative participation of the
village. It wasn’t the facilitators/development agents/animateurs imposing
themselves on the community. The following agreed to join the project as
animateurs:
• Ngugi wa Thiong’o – lecturer and chairman of the Literature Department. He
worked as a researcher and writer of the resultant play Ngaahika Ndeenda (I
will Marry when I Want)
• Dr Kimani Gecau – lecturer in the Literature Department and Director of
Ngaahika Ndeenda
• Kabiru Kinyanjui (co-researcher)
• Ngugi wa Mirii – development worker, co-ordinating director of the
Kamiriithu project and co-writer of the play Ngaahika Ndeenda

The concept of participation has been observed over the years and has been found
to be at the centre of genuine development. If people are left out from the starting
stages of development programmes, they are less likely to appreciate the initiative.
In development discourse participation involves allowing people the freedom to
chart their destiny by harnessing their cultural, economic and political resources in
order to achieve the goals of community development. Community participation
checks authoritarian and paternalistic ideas advanced by elite members of the
society. Participation is analogous to Plato’s concept of participation in the Republic
where every citizen gathers at the assembly to debate issues of mutual concern. The
whole process of researching, auditioning, rehearsing, and constructing the open air
theatre involved the participation of the community and it took nine months – from
January to September 1977. Some projects which profess participation of the
community don’t involve the community for such a long period. How did the
animateurs gather their data? Was there any systematic process that was followed
which involved the community?

During the rehearsal phase the community continued participating in shaping the
play. According to Ngugi wa Thiong’o (1981) during rehearsals the peasants taught
each other songs, dances and ceremony because they knew all about it. They were
particular about the accuracy of detail. They also commented on the suitability of


language for certain categories of characters. Ngugi wa Thiong’o reports that
comments of this nature were common: ‘An old man cannot speak like that …If you
want him to have dignity, he has to use this or that kind of proverb’ (1981: 54).
Participants were also particular about the representation of their history. They
challenged others and the director on any incorrect positioning and representation
of the facts. They checked what was being played with their own experiences during
the unfolding of that history in reality. Working class participants were keen that the
details of their exploitation in multinational factories be exposed. During the process
of creating theatre those who worked at Bata Shoe factory worked out and
explained to others that they created wealth to cover their salaries in one day, and
would work for the rest of the month for greedy owners and shareholders who
never used their hands to create that wealth. The creative process thus became a
learning process for everybody. Village residents participated by coming to watch
rehearsal and commenting on what was happening. Some of them got recruited into
the acting team after they had intervened to show how such a character should have
been portrayed. The rest of the audience applauded those who got new roles and
encouraged them to continue.

Participation is now a ‘catchy word’ interpreted and applied variously to serve
different interests. Sometimes participation is considered to have taken place when
a community attends a large community meeting where they are addressed by a
team of agents regarding some planned activity in their village. Development experts
and local elites do the thinking part involving designing the programme, writing the
play and monitoring progress. In the Third World this type of participation has failed
as it lacks a genuine process involving the community in becoming aware of its own
situation, socio-economic realities, real problems and their causes. This is top to
bottom approach where development projects are forced on the people.

The other approach to participation is the conscientisation approach. Participants
are transformed and become sentient of who they are and leads them to self-
actualisation. Part of this realisation involves working with other people in an
organised way so as to achieve power through popular participation. But this begs
the question: Who is doing the awareness creation? One criticism against this
approach to participation is the danger of exposing the community’s susceptibility to
exploitative schemes by development agents. Humanism rejects the conscientisation
approach for the reason that development agents/facilitators/animateurs may foist
in the community their biases and values. The process which they have brought
simply replaces one system with another. Left in the wrong hands, conscientisation
may be a vehicle for disseminating propaganda. Humanists argue that when people
are not involved in constructing their life-world then they become dehumanised and
alienated. Humanists probably put too much emphasis on the ability of individuals to
create a meaningful world that can bring about change. Humanists also ignore the
fact that social structures and institutions can limit human behaviour and choice.
Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA)
This refers to a practical set of approaches that are utilised to mobilise and engage
communities. The main objective of PRA is to prioritise the needs and through a plan
of action tackle the needs as in the case of Kamiriithu. As a tool PRA builds on the


principle that the community is a reservoir of local knowledge, experience, and skills
which can be harnessed for positive change. People are agents of change and not
vessels to receive change. PRA utilises local graphic representations created by the
community, hence legitimises local knowledge and promotes empowerment. Some
of the basic principles of PRA include:
 Listening not lecturing, probing instead of passing on to the next topic, being
unimposing instead of important and seeking out the down-trodden and
learning their concerns. In the Kamiriithu project the following issues were
picked out by the animateurs as themes that needed to be tackled in the
play:
1. The proletarianisation of the peasantry. This is epitomised by the
Kiguunda family which is deprived of its small piece of land by a
multinational company and forced to work in the company for a living.
2. The land question for which the Mau Mau went to war is not addressed
by the new government. The new government acts as a comprador for
foreign multinational companies. The revolution has been hijacked.
3. The deplorable working conditions of workers in multinational companies
and plantations.
4. The celebration of the revolutionary history and the continuity of that
struggle.
 Consciously exploring and cross checking; not following a blueprint
programme, but being adaptable in a learning process
 Reversal of learning: learning from with and by the people, eliciting and using
their criteria and categories and findings; understanding and appreciating
rural people’s knowledge. The animateurs in the Kamiriithu project were
unimposing, but also learnt from the process as recounted by Ngugi wa
Thiong’o:
The process, particularly for Ngugi wa Mirii, Kimani Gecau, and
myself was one of continuous learning. Learning of our history.
Learning of what goes on in the farms and plantations. Learning our
language, for the peasants were essentially the guardians of the
language through years of use (1981: 45).
 Seeking diversity: meaning looking for and learning from exceptions, oddities,
and outliers.
 Local people facilitate investigation, analysis, presentation and learning by
the people, thus they generate and own the outcomes.
 Self critical awareness – animateurs critically examine their own behaviour
such as embracing error and correcting dominant behaviour.
 Sharing information.
The effectiveness of PRA is dependent on how skilled a facilitator is and how well
s/he allows the community to participate without rushing them through the
appraisal or dominating the sessions.

Many a time participation is now being commercialised with development agents as
‘merchants of participation’. In this regard participatory development has become
an end rather than a means through which change can be realised in the rural
communities. Animateurs turn participatory development as a means to economic


gain. For this reason they care less about PRA procedures and outcomes. At the
KCECC the animateurs used the TfD method which also applies PRA principles. The
function of TfD goes beyond the theatrical event to raise issues, find solutions and
spark-off collective action. Since acting is a skill that is seldom readily available in the
communities or even among development workers, TfD is often led by a team of
theatre experts who work with different development workers to create theatrical
performances. Even though wa Thiong’o and wa Mirii are listed as the nominal
authors of I will Marry When I want (Ngaahika Ndeenda), the play was generated
through genuine participation
Issues to consider
What is the appropriate language? The play was in Gikuyu
How immediate is the environment in terms of venue; is the problem being
addressed etc?
Participation – who is doing what? This is a key question for the project coordinator
himself
Culture – here attention is drawn to the latent expressions of culture, which are
never apparent in casual impatient contact with a community. The adaptation of
appropriate indigenous art form can be included here. In Ngaahika Ndeenda the
major vehicles of communication were song, mime and dance. In Kenya and Africa in
general song and dance are central to nearly all rituals celebrating rain, birth,
circumcision, marriage, funerals and ordinary ceremonies. They were not used as
decorations in the I Will Marry When I want, but as the integral part of
conversations. They were used as part of the structure and movement of the actors.
Song, dance and mime were used to recreate the past and the future. They were
also used as part of the continuation of dialogue and action.
Time – what is the appropriate time for working with the community? For the
Kamiriithu project the readings, discussions and rehearsals were timed to keep in
rhythm with the lives of the people. Sometimes the community met on Saturday and
Sunday afternoon in order not to interfere with church attendance in the mornings.


Community theatre

Recomendados

Recomendados

Más contenido relacionado

La actualidad más candente

La actualidad más candente (20)

Destacado

Destacado (20)

Similar a Community theatre

Similar a Community theatre (20)

Último

Último (20)

Community theatre