Edward Chamberlin, in his book If This is Your Land, Where are Your Stories?, very eloquently concludes by finding an answer to this title question. I’m going to take the topics he is discussing and connect it to something I know a bit about.
Something that interested me was when Chamberlin brings up a topic discussed earlier, borders. He explains the significance of borders and how understanding when they are there can be a way to have an overall better understanding between cultures. For example, He uses theatre as a small example that I found intriguing and would like to elaborate on. Theatre has an invisible border between the audience and the actors. This border can also be called the “fourth wall”. Chamberlin explains how theatre very clearly signals this border. Particularly in a proscenium theater where the stage has an audience looking in from one side and a large arch showcasing where the stage is. There is a very clear divide between where the acting occurs and where the audience sits to watch. In Luigi Pirandello’s play Six Characters in Search of an Author, this border is used differently than typical audiences are used to. The play is not written to “break the fourth wall”. Meaning the characters do not speak to the audience or acknowledge their presence. However, as the play is about a group of actors in rehearsal, it is set in the theater. The characters use the space as it is, rather than transforming the stage into a different location. In the stage directions, it is guided that the actors leave the stage and use the first few rows of the audience seating. The proper border between the audience and actors is broken by this but not so completely as speaking directly to the audience. This only works because the border was set up in the first place. This confusion and somewhat bending of the border is kind of like what Chamberlin goes on to explore, contradictions.
The contradictions he talks about are with truth and imaginary. How is it possible to have them both at the same time? To know the actors really are in the theater and yet their stories are fiction. On page 230, Chamberlin suggests “it is not the conlict between the two sets of stories that is the problem. The problem is our forgetting the contradiction between fact and fiction”. A major theme in this novel is the difference between Us and Them and how there is no difference. He argues there is no difference between Us and Them and it is possible to believe in fact and fiction at the same time.
Last, and most importantly, Chamberlin goes on to discuss changing the underlying title of the land to aboriginal title. Really, it would be changing it back. I found this so interesting because I had not thought about the underlying title of the land before. Chamberlin so clearly points out how this is a simple problem solver and yet not so simple. A contradiction. These three intriguing parts of the conclusion so effortlessly blend into one another to conclude at Chamberlin’s answer to this question he has poised. “If this is your land, where are your stories? On common ground” (Chamberlin, 240). This suggests a mutual understanding of the borders that we are faced with, an acceptance to believe in truth and the imaginary at the same time, and a shift to who properly should own the underlying title of the land.
Works Cited
Chamberlin, J. Edward. If This Is Your Land, Where Are Your Stories?: Reimagining Home and Sacred Space. Cleveland, OH: Pilgrim, 2004. Print
“Performance Studies 101 – Part 2.” NYTW’s The Brief. N.p., Aug. 2015. Web. 20 May 2016.
“Six Characters in Search of an Author.” Theatre History. N.p., n.d. Web. 19 May 2016.
Hi Stephanie,
I really liked your points of interest. (I myself wasn’t able to break down the last chapter into just three points) I thought that the comparison to Pirandello’s play was intriguing. It was a great example not only because it broke down the physical boundaries constructing a play, but it challenged the mentality behind it as well. I think that the key difference between what Chamberlin is trying to do with his common ground and the play’s work space is that the play space is fictional. So I guess my question to you is, do you think it is possible to find that common ground in real life and accept all stories as true? And if so, is it possible to do it without condescension or patronizing the stories one considers to be other?
Sorry if that’s a crummy question 🙁
Cheers!
Thank you Dilinie, that is a lovely question.
The play space is fictional and so are some stories. Chamberlin talks about bringing fiction stories and true stories together. This can be seen in some plays that are based off of true stories and, in my opinion, these plays are rarely patronizing of the original, true story. This makes it seem that it can be possible to have these stories on common ground in other spaces.
~Stef~
Hi Stephanie,
Chamberlin provides insightful arguments as it pertains to the idea of ‘borders’ throughout the text. To add on to what you have written about borders in theatre, I also found the concept of borders interesting in story telling. Chamberlin argues that borders can be hard to find in storytelling, often people do not know where the borders are and that can be problematic due to the potential to misinterpret signals in story telling in efforts to come to a mutual understanding.
I wonder how the concept of borders could be identified in the notion of orality and written story telling?
Awesome work on your blog.
Deepak.
Thank you Deepak,
I agree with this argument that borders can be difficult to identify in storytelling. This is something that can cause some stories to seem less approachable or too “other” and being able to identify and acknowledge the borders, as Chamberlin says, can cause an audience to respond to a story in a different way.
I find this question quite difficult and I don’t know that I have an answer to it. Ideas like this are great to have discussions about and opening discourse might possibly be an answer. The more people are aware of borders and talk about it, it is possibly borders will become for them easier to identify.
~Stef~