Monologue V Dialogue; The Empowerment of the Masses
A Librarian friend of mine once told me a story about a young African American man he met in the New York Public Library right about when the Internet was taking off. The young man came into the Library and sat down at the public computer and started printing. When asked what he was printing, he replied ‘Information! Right now they’re giving it away for free, but I know that won’t last. I want to get as much of it as I can before they catch on and cut me off’. Willinsky (2002) states that ‘[o]ver the course of the last 10 years, the Internet has opened a new world of information to the public’ (p.367); this young man saw the opportunity this access gave him, and sought to take advantage of it. This newfound access has fundamentally changed the way that we interact with information, and ultimately, how we learn.
James Engel (1999), stated that the world has been victim to 100 years of monologue. He refers here to the average person’s limited access to information. Historically, the flow of information, particularly of the scholarly sort, was controlled and moderated by what Dewey (cited in Willinsky 2002) referred to as the expert class. This occurred by virtue of the fact that the expert class selected who and what was published, and how that information was disseminated. Dewey also stated that ‘[a] class of experts is inevitably so removed from common interests as to become a class with private interests and private knowledge’ (cited in Willinsky 2002, p.373). He suggested that only an increase in public access to pertinent information would allow the public to work alongside the expert, rather than be ruled by them.
Interestingly, these same ideas were spoken about by Brazilian Theatre Practitioner, and activist Augusto Boal in his discussion of a system of theatre he called The Theatre of The Oppressed. Boal was responding to Aristotlean Theatre, which he referred to as Aristotle’s coercive system of tragedy (Boal, 1979), and suggested was oppressive in that it was used intentionally by the governing power to form public opinion on certain topics by telling the audience how to feel, and what they should do. He explained that theatre that was modelled on this traditional genre reinforced power differentials in society and thus were monologic in nature; there was only one voice being heard, and the communication went in only one direction. In an interview given to Democracy Now (mediagrrl9, 2009), Boal spoke about his intention is developing the Theate of the Oppressed;
‘We [his theatre company] believe that all relationships between humans should be of a dialogic nature. We should have the moment in which you listen to the other, and the moment you speak… all those dialogues, they become monologues in which only men speak, the whites speak, the northern hemisphere speaks.’
His frustration with this never-ending monologue came to mind as I heard Engel’s words regarding the expert monologue the public had also been subjected to. Although they are speaking about different methods of information dissemination, their message is the same.
In creating the Theatre of the Oppressed, Boal wanted to create a situation where ‘the spectator delegates no power to the character (or actor) either to act or think in his place; on the contrary, he himself assumes the protagonic role, changes the dramatic action, tries out solutions, discusses plans for change- in short, trains himself for real action’ (Boal 1979, p. 98). He did this most famously through a form of theatre that falls under the Theatre of the Oppressed umbrella called Forum Theatre. In Forum Theatre, the audience is presented with a scenario, called an anti-model given it is opposite of what we would hope to see, where a protagonist faces a clearly communicated and realistic situation of oppression. The situation is not resolved by the actors. Instead, the audience is invited to think of an intervention that might help to shift the situation by a facilitator, called the Joker. The Joker then invites the audience member, to take the place of one of the characters, or to add a new character, and replay the situation, this time playing our their idea in order to see if it works. In this way, the actors are not telling the audience how to solve the problem, the audience is instead invited to enter into a dialogue with the company and explore the situation together.
Engel, Dewey and Boal speak of empowering the average person by providing them with access to the right tool, whether that be a freer access to information via the Internet, or a forum in which to explore ideas and find real-life solutions in a safe way. Whatever the arena, it seems that the message remains the same; when we provide access to that which reinforces the power differential, we diffuse the tension the hierarchy creates.
Works Cited
Boal, A. (1979). Theatre of The Oppressed, London, UK: Pluto Press.
[mediagrrl9]. (2009, May 6). Augusto Boal, Founder of the Theatre of the Oppressed, Dies at 78. Democracy Now 5/6/09 1 of 2. [Video File]. Retrieved from
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3rkVD_Oln7g&index=5&list=PLWjBunbwtrDfRfTjLsg3svx91DsTPrEYJ&t=416s
Willinsky, J. (2002). Democracy and education: The missing link may be ours. Harvard Educational Review, 72(3), p.367-392.
O’Donnell, J., Engell, J. (1999). From Papyrus to Cyberspace, Cambridge Forums.
