31

The Drama Review 46 3 (T175) Fall 2002 Copyright Oacute 2002

New York University and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Toward a Topography ofCross-Cultural Theatre Praxis

Jacqueline Lo and Helen Gilbert

Introduction

In this essay we attempt to map out a conceptual framework for analyzing acluster of related practices subsumed under the broad banner of ldquocross-culturaltheatrerdquo For the purposes of our discussion cross-cultural theatre encompassespublic performance practices characterized by the conjunction of speci c culturalresources at the level of narrative content performance aesthetics productionprocesses andor reception by an interpretive community The cultural resourcesat issue may be material or symbolic taking the form of particular objects orproperties languages myths rituals embodied techniques training methods andvisual practicesmdashor what James Brandon calls ldquocultural fragmentsrdquo (199092)Cross-cultural theatre inevitably entails a process of encounter and negotiationbetween different cultural sensibilities although the degree to which this is dis-cernible in any performance event will vary considerably depending on the artisticcapital brought to a project as well as the location and working processes involvedin its development and execution

Cross-cultural work of any kind is necessarily site-speci c hence to producean abstracted theory of its practice may seem problematic Nonetheless the in-creasing signi cance of cross-cultural theatre both within the academy and theperforming arts industries in the West demands that this practice be criticallysituated within a historicized and politicized con guration What is at stake insuch an analysis is an attempt to articulate power relationships in more overt waysand thus to foreground agency as a critical issue1 Clearly there are distinctionsbetween cross-cultural theories cross-cultural discourses and the distinct expe-riences of cross-cultural theatre but in our discussion it is not always possible tokeep these separate especially since we are engaging in what James Clifford callsldquoa kind of lsquotheorizingrsquo that is always embedded in particular maps and historiesrdquo(1994302)

We are less interested in conducting a comprehensive documentation and anal-ysis of the range of cross-cultural practices developed in recent years than in

32 LoGilbert

providing an overview of current attempts to conceptualize these practicesHence what follows is at best a form of critical pieceworkmdashldquoprovisional inter-rogative and most of all motivated within an ongoing critical struggle over thepolitical terrain of textual interpretationrdquo (Slemon 19894) While the objectiveis to survey contemporary theorizing of cross-cultural theatre in the global artsmarket our analysis retains a certain Australasian perspective The schematic rep-resentations that follow are not intended to set up rigid categories of cross-culturaltheatre or to suggest that the terminology in the eld is or should be stable Weacknowledge that there is considerable leakage between the categories and thatmany terms take on different nuances in different sites

Although one could argue that all theatre is in a sense cross-cultural in thatperformance work necessitates the negotiation of cultural differences both tem-porally (across history) and spatially (across geographical and social categories)what dominates critical and institutional interest in cross-cultural experimenta-tions has been the encounters between the West and ldquothe restrdquo This Westernfascination with non-Western performing arts has a long history beginning inthe early part of the 20th century and intensifying over the past three decadesDespite the apparent trendiness of cross-cultural workmdashas witnessed on the in-ternational festival circuit in actor training institutions and in academic dis-coursemdashthere is not yet an integrated body of theory that sets up the perimetersof the eld of cross-cultural theatrical practice With the exception of RichardSchechnerrsquos pioneering work and Patrice Pavisrsquos more recently developed modelof intercultural theatre most of the existing critical work tends to concentrate onparticular instances of cultural exchange Viewed collectively the various attemptsto conceptualize the eld reveal a contested terrain where even the terminologiesare woolly to say the least

Jonathan Dollimorersquos reminder that ldquoto cross is not only to traverse but to mix(as in to cross-breed) and to contradict (as in to cross someone)rdquo (1991288)suggests some of the possibilities for cross-cultural theatre to radicalize and in-tervene in hegemonic arts practices One of the most popular manifestations ofthis generative conception of cross-cultural encounter is the idea of the hybrid(art form culture andor identity) But ldquoto crossrdquo can also imply deception ormisrepresentation as in to ldquodouble-crossrdquo while other kinds of crossings suchas territorial invasion or war for instance can also be unwelcome With thiscontradictory semantic eld in mind we use cross-cultural theatre as a generalumbrella term which encompasses a range of theatrical practices that might beschematized as follows

Diagram 1 Types of Cross-Cultural Theatre

Cross-Cultural Theatre Praxis 33

Multicultural Theatre

ldquoMulticulturalrdquo and ldquomulticulturalismrdquo carry site-speci c meanings Countriessuch as Australia and Canada where multiculturalism is an of cial federal policyhave very different experiences and strategies of managing cultural diversity incomparison to the Unites States and Britain where multiculturalism remainslargely a community-generated consciousness that has come to in uence statemanagement2 Ien Ang and Jon Stratton have summarized the key structuraldifference between Australian and US formations of multiculturalism

In the US the politicisation of multiculturalism has been largely from thebottom up its stances advanced by minority groups (African AmericansHispanic Americans Native Americans Asian Americans and so on) whoregard themselves as excluded from the American mainstream (and forwhom the multiculturalist idea acts as an af rmation of that exclusion)while in Australia multiculturalism is a centre piece of of cial govern-mental policy that is a top-bottom political strategy implemented bythose in power precisely to improve the inclusion of ethnic minoritieswithin national Australian culture (1994126)

Canadian multiculturalism shares many similarities with its Australian counter-part with the signi cant exception that indigenous cultures feature prominentlyin the Canadian model whereas Australian multiculturalism is still dominated bythe discourse of immigration which has the effect of positioning indigenousconcerns outside the multicultural paradigm In Britain by contrast multicul-turalism functions more as a descriptive term for the interaction among majorethnic groupings in ways that resemble the US situationThese differences partlyaccount for the different degrees to which the various countries invest in mul-ticulturalism as an element of their national identity The imperatives of multi-cultural policy have in uenced not only the material practice of cross-culturaltheatre but also its critical reception In Australia and Canada multicultural the-atre has come to signify a speci c cluster of artistic practices often supportedunder the state-sanctioned rubric of community development which has gen-erated a de ned body of critical literature By contrast in the US the mostprominent ethnic theatres (Asian American African American and Hispanic)have not been integrated to the same extent under an overarching framework ofthe ldquomulticulturalrdquo

Broadly speaking there are two major types of multicultural theatre small ldquomrdquomulticultural theatre and big ldquoMrdquo multicultural theatre

Small ldquomrdquo multicultural theatre refers to theatre works featuring a racially mixedcast that do not actively draw attention to cultural differences among performersor to the tensions between the text and the production content One of the mostcommon strategies of small ldquomrdquo multicultural theatre is to use nontraditional orldquoblind castingrdquomdashusually in productions of canonical plays staged for a mainstreamaudiencemdashto signal a commitment to cultural pluralism While such castingopens up employment opportunities for minority-group actors it is a politicallyconservative practice that gives the appearance of diversity without necessarilyconfronting the hegemony of the dominant culture

In this respect Benny Ambush argues that color-blind casting does not allowactors to bring what is special about them to their roles but rather ldquowhitewashesaesthetically different peoplerdquo inviting spectators to think that racial andor cul-tural speci cities do not ldquomatterrdquo (19895) Used uncritically multiculturalcastingstrategies have the effect of sustaining a familiar view of the world by subsuming

34 LoGilbert

the defamiliarizing potential created by the lack of ldquo trdquo between actor and roleinto the normative conventions of Western theatrical realism3

Another common theatrical form included in the small ldquomrdquo multiculturalcate-gory is folkloric display a performance practice that showcases speci c culturalart forms in discrete categories often within a festival model Based primarily onthe fetishization of cultural difference folkloric theatre trades in notionsof historytradition and authenticity in order to gain recognition for the cultural capital ofdisenfranchised groups But as Gareth Grif ths warns authenticity has its owntraps it ldquomay overwrite and overdetermine the full range of representationsrdquothrough which community identities are articulated (199472) and ldquodisavow pos-sibilities of hybridized subjectsrdquo (199476) Folkloricization allows for a selectivepast but not a present or a future According to David Carter instead of a modeof interaction it presents ldquoa model of performanceobservation [of] objectsub-jectrdquo (19865)4

Big ldquoMrdquo multicultural theatre is generally a counterdiscursive practice that aimsto promote cultural diversity access to cultural expression and participation inthe symbolic space of the national narrative Its processes and products are in-formed by an expressed agenda that speaks to a politics of marginality5 Canadaand Australia have well-established track records in this form of theatre largelybecause of cial multiculturalism has played an increasingly signi cant role innation-building since the 1970s This is not to say that all big ldquoMrdquo multiculturaltheatre practice is cross-cultural as the following discussion of ghetto theatredemonstrates

Several types of theatre practice fall under the broad category of big ldquoMrdquomulticultural theatre ghetto theatre migrant theatre and community theatre6

Ghetto theatre tends to be monocultural it is staged for and by a speci c ethniccommunity and is usually communicated in the languages of that communityThe political ef cacy of this type of multicultural intervention is arguably limitedsince the performances are largely ldquoin-houserdquo and tend to focus on narrativesabout origins and loss Much ghetto theatre is infused with a nostalgic privilegingof the homeland (real or imagined) as seen from a diasporic perspective with theresult that more radical cross-cultural negotiations are muted

Migrant theatre is centrally concerned with narratives of migration and adap-tation often using a combination of ethno-speci c languages to denote culturalin-between-ness Cross-cultural negotiation is more visible in migrant theatrewhere there is an emerging exploration of cultural hybridity re ected in aestheticform as well as narrative content While one cultural group is usually responsiblefor the production and staging of migrant theatre it frequently plays not only tothat group but also to wider audiences albeit to a lesser extent hence cross-cultural negotiations may also occur at the level of reception

Community theatre is characterized by social engagement it is theatre primarilycommitted to bringing about actual change in speci c communities This focuson cultural activism is seen as an oppositional practice concerned with subvertingthose ldquodominant cultural practices which render people passive [as] consumersrdquoof imposed cultural commodities (Watt 199163) A commitment to cultural de-mocracy distinguishes community theatre from other types of community-generated performances that go under the general rubric of ldquoamateurrdquo theatreThe aesthetics of community theatre are shaped by the culture of its audience7

The constitution of the performance group and the subject matter may be or-ganized around common interests (such as gender ethnicity or shared socialexperiences) or de ned in terms of geographical location Multicultural com-munity theatre generally incorporates a range of languages and cultural resourcesincluding performing traditions drawn from the community Community arts

Cross-Cultural Theatre Praxis 35

workers are often employed to facilitate the work and the performances are typ-ically presented back to the community as well as to ldquooutsidersrdquo Cross-culturalnegotiations therefore occur at a number of levels in this type of theatre

Postcolonial Theatre

While ldquopostcolonial theatrerdquo has sometimes been used as a portmanteau de-scriptor for performance work expressing any kind of resistance politics particu-larly concerning race class andor gender oppression the term more often refersto a range of theatre texts and practices that have emerged from cultures subjectedto Western imperialism8 In its more narrowly focused de nition postcolonialtheatre is a geopolitical category designating both a historical and a discursiverelation to imperialism whether that phenomenon is treated critically or ambi-valently (see Gilbert and Tompkins 19962ndash7) The discursive axis of postcolonialtheatremdashthat it engages with imperialism in either explicit or implicit waysmdashmoves away from concepts of a naotildeve teleological sequence in which postcolo-nialism merely supersedes colonialism Hence speci c theatre practices aredeemed postcolonial not simply because of their cultural origins but also becauseof their textual and performative features While the best known postcolonialtheatre derives from indigenous groups in areas formerly colonized by Europeanandor American cultures some settler theatre in such regions is included (ifsometimes contentiously) in this category9

Most postcolonial theatre is driven by a political imperative to interrogate thecultural hegemony that underlies imperial systems of governance education so-cial and economic organization and representation Its discourses of resistancespeak primarily to the colonizing projects of Western imperial centers andor tothe neocolonial pressures of localregional postindependence regimes Resistanceis expressed in genres ranging from realism agitprop and forum theatre to po-litical satires and allegories where criticism of various ldquosensitiverdquo issues may beldquomutedrdquo to avoid the censorship of a politically repressive government or rulingclass In this context resistance is not conceptualized as pure or simply thereavailable in texts or social practices rather it is grounded in multiple and some-times contradictory structures never easily located because it is partial incom-plete ambiguous and often complicit in the apparatus it seeks to transgress Thenotion of resistance as unstable and potentially ambivalent strengthens the casefor the inclusion of some settler theatre in the postcolonial category since asStephen Slemon maintains postcolonialism is concerned with ldquothe project ofarticulating the formsmdashand modes and tropes and guresmdashof anti-colonial tex-tual resistance wherever they occur and in all their guisesrdquo (199035)

Postcolonial theatre usually involves cross-cultural negotiation at the drama-turgical and aesthetic levels because of the historical contact between culturesCross-cultural processes may also be an important part of the working practicesespecially in regions with bicultural or multicultural populations While not allpostcolonial theatre is necessarily cross-cultural it frequently assumes some kindof interpretive encounter between differently empowered cultural groups Interms of reception audiences for postcolonial theatre are complex typically vary-ing across geographical regions while being differentially in uenced by class andrace For instance Aboriginal theatre in Australia plays primarily to the dominantldquowhiterdquo culture while Wole Soyinkarsquos work nds its main audience among theeducated classes of Nigerian society as well as among cosmopolitan groups in-ternationally

Postcolonial theatre has been discussed under two main categories syncretictheatre and nonsyncretic theatre Syncretic theatre integrates performance elements

36 LoGilbert

of different cultures into a form that aims to retain the cultural integrity of thespeci c materials used while forging new texts and theatre practices10 This in-tegrative process tends to highlight rather than disguise shifts in the meaningfunction and value of cultural fragments as they are moved from their traditionalcontexts In postcolonial societies syncretic theatre generally involves the incor-poration of indigenous material into a Western dramaturgical framework whichis itself modi ed by the fusion process Christopher Balme argues that such syn-cretism activates a ldquocultural and aesthetic semiotic recoding that ultimately ques-tions the basis of normative Western dramardquo this creative endeavor is to bedistinguished from ldquotheatrical exoticismrdquo in which ldquoindigenous cultural texts arearbitrarily recoded and semanticised in a Western aesthetic and ideological framerdquowhere they tend to signify mere alterity (19994ndash5) Well-known examples ofsyncretic postcolonial theatre include works by Sistren Theatre Collective andDerek Walcott in the Caribbean Girish Karnad in India and Wole Soyinka andFemi Oso san in Nigeria A signi cant number of Aboriginal Maori and nativeNorth American plays also use syncretic performance strategies as part of theirlarger agenda of cultural recuperation

Nonsyncretic theatre by de nition does not merge disparate cultural forms butrather uses imposed imperial genresaesthetics or less often wholly indigenousones to voice postcolonial concerns For instance Western-style realism has beenwidely used to stage anticolonial narratives emanating from both indigenous andsettler communities Among the latter Australiarsquos Louis Nowra and CanadarsquosSharon Pollock gure as high-pro le playwrights whose work could be charac-terized as postcolonial but not syncretic The distinction between syncretic andnonsyncretic theatre is more dif cult to maintain in cases such as indigenousperformances of Shakespearian texts where European characters are enacted byldquoblackrdquo or ldquocoloredrdquo actors instituting tension between the performance at issueand the tradition that it transgresses It could be argued here that syncretisminheres in the juxtaposition of the performersrsquo bodies (as culturally coded sign-systems) to scripts ineluctably embedded with markers of a different culture Thisexample suggests that postcolonial theatre is best conceptualized as exhibitingvarying degrees of syncretism rather than falling neatly into opposing categories

Intercultural Theatre

Whereas multicultural theatre is often the effect of state-determined culturalmanagement andor a grassroots response to the ldquolived realityrdquo of cultural plu-ralism and postcolonial theatre is produced as part of (and in opposition to) ahistorical process of imperialism and neoimperialism intercultural theatre is char-acterized as a ldquovoluntarist intervention circumscribed by the agencies of the stateand the marketrdquo (Bharucha 200033) Multicultural theatre functions within astatist framework premised on ideals of citizenship and the management of cul-turalethnic difference while intercultural theatre and to a certain extent post-colonial theatre have more latitude to explore and critique alternative formsof citizenship and identity across and beyond national boundaries although thesubjectivities they produce are not wholly free of state mediation Put simplyintercultural theatre is a hybrid derived from an intentional encounter betweencultures and performing traditions It is primarily a Western-based tradition witha lineage in modernist experimentation through the work of Tairov MeyerholdBrecht Artaud and Grotowski More recently intercultural theatre has beenassociated with the works of Richard Schechner Peter Brook Eugenio BarbaAriane Mnouchkine Robert Wilson Tadashi Suzuki and Ong Keng Sen Evenwhen intercultural exchanges take place within the ldquonon-Westrdquo they are often

Cross-Cultural Theatre Praxis 37

mediated through Western culture andor economics Ongrsquos ldquoPan-Asianrdquo spec-taculars LEAR (1997) and Desdemona (1999) are cases in point (see De Reuck2000 and Grehan 2000)

One only has to refer to Pavisrsquos The Intercultural Performance Reader (1996) toappreciate the range of approaches encompassed by the term ldquointerculturalismrdquoand the extent to which it evades any neat de nition While attempting to mapdevelopments in the eld The Reader documents diverse positions that fore-ground interculturalism as a contested site for both theory and practice Despitethis apparent diversity there is evidence pointing to interculturalism as a Westernvision of exchange Pavis himself acknowledges this bias explaining that the col-lection was ldquolargely produced by and aimed at a European and Anglo-Americanreadershiprdquo (199625) The privileging of the West is evident in the ways in whichthe essays are grouped within the book for instance the juxtapositioning of PartII titled ldquoIntercultural Performance from the Western Point of Viewrdquo with PartIII ldquoIntercultural Performance from Another Point of Viewrdquo replicates the ldquoWestand the restrdquo binary paradigm and reveals a problematic ideological aporia Putdifferently interculturalism as it has been theorized and documented thus far isalready overdetermined by the West

Although Pavis echoing Erika Fischer-Lichte claims that it is too soon topropose a global theory of interculturalism (19961) there already exists a glob-alizing practice that demands further political and ethical interrogationSimilarlyJulie Holledge and Joanne Tompkins (2000) contend that intercultural theatre istoo varied and process-based to warrant a general theory They opt instead for asite-speci c study of intercultural projects But this reluctance to engage with theldquobig picturerdquo arguably runs the risk of consolidating the ideological premises ofinterculturalism as a Western-dominated form of knowledge production By priv-ileging content speci city the false dichotomy between praxis and theory is main-tained this also has the effect of relegating issues of ethics to the particular andthe ldquoone off rdquo rather than relating these to larger issues of knowledge formationwithin institutional national and global contexts

Our study of a range of intercultural practice and the theoretical discussion ithas generated suggests that the eld can be loosely divided into three subcate-gories

Transcultural theatre aims to transcend culture-speci c codi cation in order toreach a more universal human condition Transcultural directors are interested inparticularities and traditions only insofar as they enable the directors to identifyaspects of commonality rather than difference (Pavis 19966) There are manyvariations to this search for the universal In the case of Peter Brook transcen-dence of the particular is a necessary part of the mythic quest for origins andWestern theatrersquos supposed loss of ldquopurityrdquo This return to sources and the reap-propriation of primitive languages is a metaphysical quest for a truth that holdseverywhere and at any time irrespective of historical or cultural differences InOrghast (1970) for instance Brook attempted to create an original tonal languageby tapping into a primeval consciousness Eugenio Barbarsquos work in ISTA (Inter-national School of Theatre Anthropology) is another form of transculturaltheatrePavis distinguishes Barbarsquos work as ldquopreculturalrdquo it does not aim to identify thecommon origins of cultures in Brookrsquos way but rather seeks what is common toldquoEasternrdquo and ldquoWesternrdquo theatre practitioners before they become individualizedor ldquoacculturatedrdquo in particular traditions and techniques of performance (19967)According to Barba the goal is to compare the work methods of both Easternand Western theatre and ldquoto reach down into a common technical substratumrdquowhich is ldquothe domain of pre-expressivity [] At this pre-expressive level theprinciples are the same even though they nurture the enormous expressive dif-

38 LoGilbert

ferences which exist between one tradition and another one actor and anotherrdquo(1996220) Barba stresses that these principles are analogous to one another ratherthan homologous nevertheless his search for an essence beyond socialization ischaracteristic of the desire to transcend social and cultural ldquotrappingsrdquo in a movetoward a ldquopurerrdquo mode of communication and theatrical presence

Intracultural theatre is Rustom Bharucharsquos term to denote cultural encountersbetween and across speci c communities and regions within the nation-stateMore speci cally in relation to his own ldquointraculturalrdquo work Bharucha pointsto internal diversity within the boundaries of a particular region or nation Thissense of the intracultural has similarities to the multicultural

insofar as they assume either the interaction or the coexistence of regionaland local cultures within the larger framework of the nation-state How-ever while the ldquointrardquo prioritizes the interactivity and translation of di-verse cultures the ldquomultirdquo upholds a notion of cohesiveness (Bharucha20009)

In this way intracultural theatre serves a critical function in challenging ldquoorgan-icist notions of culture by highlighting the deeply fragmented and divided society[] that multicultural rhetoric of the state refuses to acknowledgerdquo (Bharucha20009)

Extracultural theatre refers to theatre exchanges that are conducted along a West-East and North-South axis The converse of intraculturalism this form of inter-culturalism goes back to the modernist pioneers who looked to the non-West torejuvenate Western art Schechner is the best-known contemporary exponent ofthis practice his experimental productions dating back to the late 1960s with thestaging of a West Irian birth ritual in Dionysus in 69 (1968) and subsequentlydeveloping through numerous theatre projects and theoretical essays in the eld11

While extracultural theatre can encompass some forms of transcultural theatre asin Brookrsquos Mahabharata (1985) it also includes intercultural experiments whichdo not aim to relativize or transcend cultural differences but rather to celebrateand even interrogate such differences as a source of cultural empowerment andaesthetic richness As a category of analysis extracultural theatre always begsquestions about the power dynamics inherent in the economic and political lo-cation of the participating cultures even if such questions are evaded in accountsof actual practice

The remainder of this essay will focus primarily on this extracultural form ofintercultural theatre

Modes of Conducting Intercultural Theatre

The range of working methods employed in intercultural theatre can generallybe positioned along a continuum One pole of the continuum is characterizedby a collaborative mode of exchange while the opposite pole is characterized asimperialistic Most intercultural theatre occurs somewhere between these twoextremes and speci c projects may shift along the continuum depending on thephase of cultural production It is vital that the continuum is conceived in pro-cessual rather than xed terms in order to foreground intercultural exchange asa dynamic process rather than a static transaction

Diagram 2 Continuum ofIntercultural Modes

Cross-Cultural Theatre Praxis 39

Collaborative

Intercultural exchange at this end of the continuum tends to emphasize theprocesses and politics of exchange rather than the theatrical product per se Thisform of theatre-making places great importance on cultural negotiations at alllevels from the highly personal and individualistic to the ldquosuperstructuralrdquo andinstitutional Collaborative interculturalism is often community-generated ratherthan market andor state-driven There is less of a focus on maintaining theldquopurityrdquo of the various cultures for exotic display The exchange process is oftenmarked by tension and incommensurability While there is a general desire tomaintain equitable power relations between partners the aim is not to producea harmonious experience of theatre-making but rather to explore the fullness ofcultural exchange in all its contradictions and convergences for all parties Thetheatre product may similarly resist forced synthesis revealing instead both thepositive and negative aspects of the encounter12 Ferdinand Ortizrsquos concept oftransculturation (not to be confused with transculturalism) offers a useful way ofanalyzing collaborative interculturalism by going beyond a model of easy fusionto account for both acquisition and loss at the same time In the transculturationprocess elements of each system of culture are lost in the creation of a thirdsystem Cultural encounter of this kind can be potentially counterhegemonic itallows minor cultures to act on dominant ones rather than merely submit tocultural loss in the transaction (see Taylor 199162ndash63)

Imperialistic

Intercultural exchange at this end of the continuum is often driven by a senseof Western culture as bankrupt and in need of invigoration from the non-WestThe resulting theatre tends to tap into ldquoOtherrdquo cultural traditions that are per-ceived as ldquoauthenticrdquo and uncontaminated by (Western) modernity Interculturalpractice in this mode is largely an aesthetic response to cultural diversity Thereis a discernible difference in agency between partners such inequity is oftenhistorically based and may continue in the present through economic politicaland technological dominance This form of theatre tends to be product-orientedand usually produced for the dominant culturersquos consumption Performances areoften highly spectacular with emphasis placed on the aesthetic and formal qualitiesof the mise-en-scene The intercultural work of practitioners such as ArianeMnouchkine has been described as imperialist though Mnouchkine refutes thischarge preferring to see her appropriations of Asian performing traditions as aform of indebtedness and ldquohomagerdquo Maria Shevtsova defends this position byasserting that Mnouchkine does not purport to use the ldquooriginalrdquo art form andthat her ldquoborrowingrdquo practices should be understood within the logic of herWestern system of aestheticism (1997102)

Responses to Interculturalism

Given the range of intercultural modalities it is not surprising that criticaltheoretical responses are similarly varied Generally speaking most commentatorshave analyzed interculturalism as practice their responses ranging from the ce-lebratory to the highly critical Schechnerrsquos earlier writings about interculturalpractice exemplify many aspects of the celebratory stance13 Schechner refers tothe intercultural experimentations in the US from the 1950s to the mid rsquo70s asa ldquogolden age of innocencerdquo

People didnrsquot question too much whether or not this interculturalism []was a continuation of colonialism a further exploitation of other cultures

40 LoGilbert

There was something simply celebratory about discovering how diversethe world was how many performance genres there were and how wecould enrich our own experience by borrowing stealing exchanging(198219)

This neoliberal embrace of cultural difference celebrates the possibilities of cul-tural fusion and the construction of radical subjectivities beyond national andethnic boundaries Intercultural practice in this sense is deeply imbricated inglobalization and the perceived deterritorialization of social cultural and politicalboundaries for those in the developed world even if this is not often acknowl-edged by the critics and practitioners themselves14 It should be noted thatSchechnerrsquos position has shifted signi cantly since then15 over the last decade inparticular his critical work shows less of a tendency to idealize cross-culturalexchange and a keener awareness of power relations He also acknowledges the

misunderstandings broken languages and failed transactions that occurwhen and where cultures collide overlap or pull away from each otherThese are seen not as obstacles to be overcome but as fertile rifts or erup-tions full of creative potential (19913)

At the other end of the scale is the ethical critique of intercultural practice asinvasive globalization Daryl Chin argues that

Interculturalism hinges on the questions of autonomy and empowermentTo deploy elements from the symbol system of another culture is a verydelicate enterprise In its crudest terms the question is when does thatusage act as cultural imperialism Forcing elements from disparate culturestogether does not seem to be a solution that makes much sense aestheti-cally ethically or philosophically What does that prove that the knowl-edge of other cultures exists That information about other cultures nowis readily available (199194)

For Bharucha likewise interculturalism cannot be separated from a larger his-tory of colonialism and orientalism (see also Dasgupta 1991) He contends thatinterculturalism is an inherently ethnocentric practice which seeks to synthesizecultural difference rather than respect its individual histories

The problem arises [] when the preoccupation with the ldquoself rdquo over-powers the representation of ldquootherrdquo cultures [and] when the Other isnot another but the projection of onersquos ego Then all one has is a glori -cation of the self and a co-option of other cultures in the name of repre-sentation (199328)

John Russell Brown adds

Exchange borrowing trade or looting across major frontiers diminishesany theatre because it transgresses its inherited reliance on the societyfrom which the drama takes its life and for which it was intended to beperformed [] However worthily it is intended intercultural theatricalexchange is in fact a form of pillage and the result is fancy-dress pre-tence or at best the creation of a small zoo in which no creature has itsfull life (199814)

Cross-Cultural Theatre Praxis 41

Such moral critiques while absolutely essential to the politicizing of intercul-turalism risk instigating a kind of paralysis insofar as they suggest that virtuallyno form of theatrical exchange can be ethical16 This position is clearly untenablefor a number of practitioners especially those whose art is derived from (andaims to explore) experiences of cultural hybridity For instance performanceartisttheorist Guillermo Gomez-Pena a self-confessed ldquochild of crisis and cul-tural syncretismrdquo (199338) sees his own work (and the desirable future of Amer-ican theatre) as inevitably pluralistic unavoidably intercultural But he is alsoacutely aware of the implications of intercultural work noting that it is ldquofunda-mental to address relationships of power and assumptions about privilege amongthe participating artists communities and countriesrdquo in order to develop ethicalmodels of theatrical exchange (19969) To facilitate this Gomez-Pena calls for amuch more rigorous public debate about cultural issues in general about equityand diversity about de nitions of ldquomulti- inter- intra- and cross-culturalrdquoabout which encounters between cultures are ldquosymmetrical and desirable andwhich are more reactionaryrdquo (199357) In projects such as Temple of Confessions(1994) A Seminar on Museum Race Relations (1995) and Mexterminator Project(1999)mdashdeliberately provocative works that are at times even ldquounethicalrdquomdashGomez-Pena relentlessly stages aspects of this debate always avoiding de nitiveanswers

Theoretical Models of Interculturalism

While many critics have posed theoretical challenges to the intercultural en-terprise there have been surprisingly few attempts to formulate a comprehensivemodel of intercultural exchange Marvin Carlson has offered a scale consisting ofseven categories of cross-cultural in uence based on ldquopossible relationships be-tween the culturally familiar and the culturally foreignrdquo (199050) While usefulfor differentiating types of projects this scale does not move beyond an essentiallytaxonomic analysis of the eld Fischer-Lichte takes a different tack focusingspeci cally on the adaptation process which she insists follows a model of ldquopro-ductive receptionrdquo rather than one of translation (1997154ndash55) Productive re-ception emphasizes aspects of a performance caused or in uenced by receptionand is aligned in Fischer-Lichtersquos work with the project of revitalizing tired the-atrical practices though she does not elaborate on the precise dynamics involved

Pavis has thus far been the only critic able to sustain a comprehensive modelof intercultural exchange His hourglass model depicts in its upper bowl theforeign or source culture ldquowhich is more or less codi ed and solidi ed in diverseanthropological sociocultural or artistic modelizationsrdquo (19924) This is repre-sented by lters 1 and 2 in the diagram below The ldquograins of culturerdquo trickledown to the lower bowl and are rearranged in the process The lters 3 through11 put in place by the target culture and the observer largely determine the nalformation of the grains17 The model focuses on ldquothe intercultural transfer be-tween source and target culturerdquo as a way of depicting the relativity of the notionof culture and the complicated relationship between partners in the exchange(19925)

Critique of the Hourglass Model

In practice Pavisrsquos hourglass is an accurate model of most intercultural workof the extracultural kind But the modelrsquos strength is also its weakness it cannotaccount for alternative and more collaborative forms of intercultural exchangeDespite Pavisrsquos wariness of a translationcommunication model of intercultural-ism his elaboration of the process of cultural transfer reveals its dependence on

42 LoGilbert

translation theory The main problem with this model is that it assumes a one-way cultural ow based on a hierarchy of privilege even though Pavis attemptsto relativize the power relations by claiming that the hourglass can be turnedupside-down ldquoas soon as the users of a foreign culture ask themselves how theycan communicate their own culture to another target culturerdquo (19925) Thishowever assumes that there is a ldquolevel-playing eldrdquo between the partners in theexchange and does not account for the fact that the bene ts of globalization andthe permeability of cultures and political systems are accessed differentially fordifferent communities and nations

A translation model of interculturalism therefore runs the risk of reproducingstrategies of containment As Tejaswine Niranjana points out

By employing certain modes of representing the othermdashwhich it therebyalso brings into beingmdashtranslation reinforces hegemonic versions of thecolonized helping them acquire the status of what Edward Said calls rep-resentations or objects without history (19923)

Diagram 3 Pavisrsquos hour-glass Model of InterculturalTheatre

Cross-Cultural Theatre Praxis 43

Pavis is not unaware of this danger

If [the hourglass] is only a mill it will blend the source culture destroy itsevery speci city and drop into the lower bowl an inert and deformed sub-stance which will have lost its original modeling without being moldedinto that of the target culture If it is only a funnel it will indiscriminatelyabsorb the initial substance without reshaping it through the series of l-ters or leaving any trace of the original matter (19925)

Having said this however Pavis is unable to account for interculturalism as aprocess of political negotiation For example he argues that the mise-en-sceneas the central site of interculturalism functions as a ldquokind of reglage (lsquo ne-tuningrsquo)rdquo which mediates between different contexts cultural backgrounds andtraditions (19926) ldquoFine-tuningrdquo serves to smooth over differences in ways thatbecome intelligible for the target culture Similarly ldquoreception-adaptersrdquo ( lter8) ll the lacunae in the transfer of cultural content and dissipate the tensions ofincommensurability in order to create a ldquoreadablerdquo text for the target culture

The teleology of the hourglass model ultimately reduces interculturalexchangeto an alimentary process According to this logic the body belongs to the targetculture while the source culture becomes the food which must be digested andassimilated As Pavis notes only the grains that are ldquosuf ciently nerdquo will ldquo owthrough [the hourglass neck] without any troublerdquo (19924) His model cannotaccount for blockage collisions and retroaction as sites of either intervention orresistance In the nal analysis intercultural exchange according to the hourglassmodel is a reductive process which distills cultural difference into essences thatcan be readily absorbed by the target culture While Pavis does acknowledge thein uence of the social context ( lters 10B and 10C) the temporally bound meta-phor of the hourglass suggests that sociohistorical factors rather than in ectingthe entire intercultural process simply constitute the nal lter before the the-atrical product is consumed by the target culture In short the hourglass modelis premised on aesthetics rather than on politics

Pavis does not stray far from this model in his more recent theorization of the eld (1996) proffering instead a more careful schematization of different formsand modes of intercultural practice Although he does acknowledge the proble-matics of power inequities between partners in the exchange noting that ldquotherecan be no sense in which Asian perspectives are always reversible and symmetricalwith those of the Westmdashas a purely functionalist use of the hourglass turnedover and over ad in nitum might lead us naively to believerdquo (19962) there islittle sense that he has revised the translation principles underlying his model18

Pavis takes account of some of the recent ethical critiques of interculturalismandis particularly wary of it being absorbed into a postmodernist form of culturalrelativism Although he claims that ldquoexchange implies a theory and an ethics ofalterityrdquo (199611) he does not foreground the ethical dimension in any discern-ible way Signi cantly Pavis claims that the kind of intercultural practice thatholds the most potential for ldquoresistance against standardization against the Eu-ropeanization of super-productionsrdquo is the ldquointer-corporeal work in which anactor confronts hisher technique and professional identity with those of theothersrdquo (1996150) By locating the potential for agency at this microscopic levelof actor training Pavis reveals the limitations of the hourglass model as an effectivetemplate for a politicized theorization of the entire eld of interculturalism

Matrixing Interculturalism and Postcolonialism

One way of approaching the problems raised by Pavisrsquos model of interculturaltheatre is to consider its mechanisms through the lens of postcolonial theory

44 LoGilbert

Despite their shared concern with the phenomenon of cultural encounter the-ories of interculturalism and postcolonialism have thus far developed as more orless asymmetrical discourses the former having roots in theatre anthropology(viaVictor Turner) and semiotics the latter in literary and cultural studies as well asin psychoanalysis (via Frantz Fanon) and poststructuralism Of the two discoursespostcolonial theory has been the most consistently political taking as its primaryimperative the task of exposing and redressing unequal power relationships be-tween cultures whereas interculturalism has concerned itself more often with theaesthetics of cultural transfer What postcolonial theory offers to current debatesabout interculturalism is a framework for analyzing such thorny issues as agencyhybridity and authenticity issues that lie at the heart of intercultural praxis Withits insistent stress on historicity and speci city postcolonial theory offers ways ofrelocating the dynamics of intercultural theatre within identi able elds of so-ciopolitical and historical relations This contextualizing enables us to ask at anypoint in the production and reception processes of intercultural work questionsabout individual and collective power Whose economic andor political interestsare being served How is the working process represented to the target audienceand why Who is the target audience and how can differences be addressed withinthis constituency How does a speci c intercultural event impact on the widersociopolitical environment

The term ldquointerculturalrdquo suggests an exploration of the interstice betweencultures it draws our attention to the hyphenated third space separating andconnecting different peoples The act of crossing cultures (with reference to Dol-limorersquos notions of travesty hybridity and con ict) should ideally activate bothcentrifugal and centripetal forces in the process of mutual contamination andinteraction This is an aspect which Pavisrsquos unilinear model of interculturalismcannot take into account We would therefore like to propose an alternativemodel of intercultural exchange which for the purposes of this essay focuses onthe ldquobig picturerdquo and uses some of Pavisrsquos categories and terminologies Ourmodel is both a template for an intercultural practice that encourages more mu-tuality and an attempted representation of the mutuality that has already existedat some level even if it has been limited and nonre exive indeed suppressed inmuch theorizing of particular projects Our aim is to adapt what is essentially anappropriativeassimilationist model into a more collaborativenegotiated oneThe model we have in mind draws inspiration from a toy we used to play withas children in both Malaysia and Australia The toy consisted of a piece of elasticstrung through the middle of a plastic disc The elastic string is held at each endwith the disc supported in the center By rotating the hands in a circular motionthe disc is rotated outward Once the disc is rotating the elastic is alternatelytightened and released to continue the spinning of the disc The disc moves ineither direction along the string depending on whether the tension is generatedby the left or the right hand

In our model intercultural exchange is represented as a two-way ow Bothpartners are considered cultural sources while the target culture is positionedalong the continuum between them The location of the target culture is not xed its position remains uid and depending on where and how the exchangeprocess takes place shifts along the continuum For instance if the performancetakes place in the domain of source culture B then the position of the targetculture moves closer to source Brsquos end of the continuum This uidity not onlyforegrounds the dialogic nature of intercultural exchange but also takes into ac-count the possibility of power disparity in the partnership

Both source cultures bring to the theatrical project cultural apparatuses shapedby their respective sociocultural milieu ( lters 1 and 2) and both undergo a seriesof transformations and challenges in the process of exchange ( lters 3 through 9)

Cross-Cultural Theatre Praxis 45

SourceCulture B

1 cultural modeling2 artistic modeling3 work of adaptation4 preparatory work by

actors5 choice of theatrical

form6 artistic modeling of

target culture7 sociological amp

anthropologicalmodeling of targetculture

8 cultural modeling oftarget culture

9 given and anticipatedconsequences

SourceCulture A

cultural modeling

artistic modeling

work of adaptation

preparatory work byactors

choice of theatricalform

artistic modeling oftarget culture

sociological ampanthropologicalmodeling of targetculture

cultural modeling oftarget culture

given and anticipatedconsequences

SociopoliticalContext

InterculturalProcess for

TargetCulture

SociopoliticalContext

1234

5

6

7

8

9

in relation to each other and in anticipation of the target culture Even if thetarget culture is aligned with one of the source cultures both partners still undergoa similar process of ltration and hybridization however differently experiencedPositioned at the tension between source cultures intercultural exchange is char-acterized both by gain and by loss attraction and disavowal This dialogism isrepresented by the centrifugal and centripetal forces indicated in the diagramabove The proposed model locates all intercultural activity within an identi ablesociopolitical context This serves not only to foreground the inseparability ofartistic endeavors from sociopolitical relations but also to remind us that theoryand reading strategies are themselves deeply imbricated in speci c histories andpolitics

Our model of intercultural theatre rests on a notion of differentiated hybriditythat works in multiple and sometimes opposing ways19 Postcolonial theory haslong recognized that particular modes of hybridity are pinned to social politicaland economic factors which are conditioned in turn by historical experiencesof cultural encounters Extensive debate about the political purchase of hybridityhas prompted scholars such as Robert Young (1995) to distinguish between twokinds of hybridity organic and intentional Organic hybridity which has beenaligned with creolization and metissage is close to the fusion model oftenmanifestin intercultural theory It results in new cultural practices and identities withoutconscious contestation and serves a stabilizing function in settling cultural dif-ferences In this kind of hybridity agency inheres in cosmopolitanism the abilityto cross between cultures and to master their hybrid forms In contrast intentionalhybridity focuses on the process of negotiation between different practices andpoints of view It is characterized by division and separation and tends to be self-re exive with the negotiation process inevitably pinpointing areas of con ict In

Diagram 4 ProposedModel for Interculturalism

46 LoGilbert

this instance agency hinges on the degree to which cultural forms resist dilutionandor co-option According to Young the two categories of hybridity the in-tentional and the organic can be in operation at the same time resulting in anantithetical movement of coalescence and antagonism This offers a

dialectical model for cultural interaction an organic hybridity which willtend towards fusion in con ict with intentional hybridity which enables acontestatory activity a politicized setting of cultural differences againsteach other dialogically (199522)

Debates about hybridity in postcolonial theory tend to go hand in hand withdiscussions of authenticity Grif ths reminds us that ldquoauthenticityrdquo is a politicallycharged concept rather than a ldquonaturalrdquo or preexisting attribute While it may bepolitically exigent for non-Western peoples to deploy discourses of authenticityin order to bolster their cultural authority in the hands of Western critics andcommentators the sign of the ldquoauthenticrdquo can easily become a fetishized com-modity that grounds the legitimacy of other cultures ldquonot in their practice butin our desirerdquo (Grif ths 199482) That much intercultural theatre has been drivenby an intense interest in harnessing ldquotraditionalrdquo performance forms suggests weshould treat authenticity with caution recognizing that it registers and respondsto hierarchies of power In this context the ability to manipulate markers ofauthenticity becomes another measure of agency

Sites of Intervention

If postcolonialism is to denaturalize the universalist vision of the more egre-gious kinds of interculturalism it must bring into focus such aspects of theatre aslanguage space the body costume and spectatorship as ideologically laden signsystems as well as potential sites of hybridity By brie y outlining politicized waysof reading such sign systems20 we hope in the nal section of this essay to suggestpathways into intercultural projects that resist an unproblematized transfer of cul-ture

On the whole intercultural theatre has tended to favor visual spectacle overlinguistic innovation nevertheless there are signi cant language-based issues thatpertain to both its processes and products An elementary but immensely im-portant question is the matter of whose language is used for everyday commu-nication during the devising and rehearsing of speci c productions The fact thatEnglish has become the lingua franca in an increasingly globalized arts communitygives its native speakers considerable power to substantiate their views andorsecure their particular agendas In this respect we should remember that thewide-scale imposition of imperial languages on non-Western peoples has consti-tuted an insidious form of epistemic violence since the system of values inherentin a language becomes the ldquosystem upon which social economic and politicaldiscourses are groundedrdquo (Ashcroft Grif ths and Tif n 1995283) To ask whosevalues are heard and whose are silenced by the use of speci c languages thereforeseems essential to a more politicized form of interculturalism In addition wemight ask how linguistic translationsare conducted and whose interests they serveDoes the translator function as a negotiator or a type of ldquonative informantrdquo Whathappens to linguistic concepts that resist translation or adaptation In terms oftheatrical product language issues are equally complicated How do staged lan-guages animate one another Which carries the cultural authority What happensto the performative features of verbal enunciation particularly when stories frompredominantly oral cultures are presented How might we reread verbally silencedbodies in different ways

Cross-Cultural Theatre Praxis 47

Since intercultural theatre stages a meeting of cultures in both physical andimaginative realmsmdashthe actual place(s) where a project takes place as well as the ctional spaces represented by the mise-en-scenemdashits spatial semantics also de-mand analysis Space is neither neutral nor homogenous it inevitably colors thoserelationships within its limits especially on the stage where con gurations ofspace take on symbolic meaning We need to ask then how the physical spacemeeting place in ects intercultural collaborationWhose ground are we on Whatare the power relations inscribed in the architectural aspects of that place Howcan theatre provide a space for negotiatingor subverting the relationships its spatialcon gurations foster We also need to examine the ideological assumptions thatinhere in the imaginative space(s) created by the scenography What does the setfor instance convey about the cultures involved in the collaboration Whichactors and characters have access topriority over what spaces Where are theborders between cultures and how are they maintained traversed or brokendown What kind of cultural landscape is suggested by the stagescape

Postcolonial theorizing of geography cartography and spatial history showshow space is constructed in the nexus of power and culture rather than simplyexisting as an ontological category This kind of politicized approach brings intofocus the disjunctive gap between visible space and its ctional referent (what weinfer or imagine from our culturally in ected reading of proxemics) It is thenpossible to explore the rhizomatic potential of interculturalismmdashits ability to makemultiple connections and disconnections between cultural spacesmdashand to createrepresentations that are unbounded and open and potentially resistant to im-perialist forms of closure

The body in intercultural theatre is equally subject to multiple inscriptionsproducing an unstable signi er rather than a totalized identity It is a site of con-vergence for contesting discourses even though it may be marked with the dis-tinctive signs of a particular culture Postcolonial theory aims to foreground theways in which power is inscribed on and negotiated through the body Suchtheory continually questions what is spoken through the body how its languagesoperate and in the service of whose vested interests It maintains that the bodyis not only a site of knowledgepower but also a site of resistance which inElizabeth Groszrsquos words ldquoexerts a recalcitrance and always entails the possibilityof counterstrategic re-inscription [because] it is capable of being self-marked self-represented in alternative waysrdquo (199064) We need then to look at how resis-tance is expressed in relation to performative bodies how those bodies encodedifference and speci city and how they can prevent the universalizing impulseof transculturalism

As categories that are constructed through visible differences race and genderhave particular signi cance in this respect it is important to note however thatthese are complex and even unstable categories being historically conditionedrather than determined solely by biology One of the problems intercultural the-atre often faces is how to avoid essentialist constructions of race and gender whilestill accounting for the irreducible speci city of certain bodies and body behav-iors A common response is to elevate particular roles in source texts to the level ofarchetypes that can then be played by any skilled performer Peter Brookrsquos Ma-habharata has been accused of this approach (Dasgupta 1991 Bharucha 199368ndash87) This process of distillation strips the readable signs of culture from the sourcetext rather than provoke the audience to examine the tensions between partici-pating cultures There is no dialogic interaction instead a speci c body is sub-merged in the archetypal role according to the aesthetic principles of the projectPostcolonial theory warns against the dehistoricizing effects of such distillationprocesses It focuses on analyzing the gap between the material body and what itis supposed to represent This involves examining movement as well as bodily ap-

48 LoGilbert

pearance since as Pavis notes ldquoactors simultaneously reveal the culture of thecommunity where they have trained and where they live and the bodily tech-nique they have acquiredrdquo (19963) Rather than working from principles of ab-straction an intercultural practice informed by postcolonialism would play upcultural differences without attempting to deny the effects of the political econ-omy that underpins the project The hybrid counter-energies that result from theclash between the symbolic space and the culturally inscribed body can then pro-duce ldquoa radical heterogeneity discontinuity [and] the perpetual revolutionof formrdquo(Young 199525)

A politicized reading of costume is similarly necessary to the formulation of amore comprehensive theory about intercultural performance It seems that partof the attraction of interculturalism has to do with the fantasy of stepping intoldquonativerdquo costume in a process of cultural transvestism that does anything butsubvert power hierarchies As Gail Ching-Liang Low argues the fantasy of cross-cultural dressing identi es clothes as a ldquolsquobadge and advertisementrsquo of [the domi-nant culturersquos] ability to cross the class and cultural gaprdquo hence cultural transvestismoffers ldquothe promise of lsquotransgressiversquo pleasure without the penalties of actualchangerdquo (198992ndash93) If such transvestism could be used to draw attention tothe dif culties that inhere in crossing cultural gaps costume would then becomeanother possible site of resistant inscription rather than a conduit for the one-waycultural transfer that currently characterizes certain forms of interculturalismThisis where postcolonial theories about mimicry masquerade and self-consciousconstructions of subjectivity can come into play because they treat costume as amalleable and even ambiguous signi er rather than a transparent sign of particulargender racial social and national identities

Degrees of power and privilege are also embedded in the framing mechanismsthrough which particular elements of a performance are presented to its audi-ence(s) Typically intercultural theatre positions the performance traditions andoractual bodies of ldquootherrdquo cultures as focal points of the Western viewerrsquos specularconsumption and it is through this kind of untroubled and desiring gaze thatrei ed images of cultural difference are validated and circulated on the ldquointer-nationalrdquo arts market If intercultural theatre means to address the potential in-equities involved in Western appropriations of other cultural traditions then itsadherents must conceive of a theatre that somehow engages with its own estab-lished ldquolookingrdquo relations Interventionary frameworks and other metatheatricaldevicesmdashthese might range from direct audience address to self-conscious roleplaying to forum discussionmdashcan be used to problematize the implicitly im-perialist object-relations model of cross-cultural spectatorship Within the self-re exive theatre that we envision the hybridizing of cultural fragments wouldbe far from seamless cultural tensions would not be hidden nor difference nat-uralized

Conclusion

We have attempted to map the eld of cross-cultural theatre as a way of think-ing through its complexities and contradictions Despite our efforts to integratea diverse range of theories and practices into a ldquobig-picturerdquo account of the eldwe are not advocating a totalizing theory of cultural exchange Rather our dis-cussion is designed to enable a strategic way of rethinking the local and context-speci c through the global and vice versa This sort of matrixed model we wouldargue proffers a more nuanced method of actualizing and analyzing the range ofwork that is increasingly becoming a globalized praxis

Our all too brief survey of potential sites of intervention in the practice andinterpretation of intercultural theatre outlines some of the ways in which the

Cross-Cultural Theatre Praxis 49

mise-en-scene can be politicized and the notion of cultural hegemony relativizedIn an age where cultural boundaries are continually traversed and identities arebecoming increasingly hybridized an intercultural theatre practice informed bypostcolonial theory can potentially function as a site where this intersecting ofcultures is both re ected and critiqued Such a practice would align with (thoughnot necessarily replicate) Gomez-Penarsquos formulation of ldquoborder artrdquo in whichthe performerrsquos job is ldquoto trespass bridge interconnect reinterpret remap andrede nerdquo the limits of culture (199612) It is vital that intercultural theatrersquospotential to cross cultures is not co-opted and neutralized by the ldquoweakerrdquo formsof postmodernism which tend to result in an abstract depoliticized and ahis-torical notion of ldquodifferencerdquo or in effect a masked ldquoindifferencerdquo In this re-spect Homi Bhabharsquos clari cation of postcolonial hybridity as based on anagonistic relationship rather than a seamless fusion offers a workable model foran ethics as well as an aesthetics of cross-cultural engagement

Hybrid hyphenations emphasise the incommensurable elements [] as thebasis of cultural identi cations What is at issue is the performative natureof differential identities the regulation and negotiation of those spaces thatare continually contingently ldquoopening outrdquo remaking the boundariesexposing the limits of any claim to a singular or autonomous sign of dif-ferencemdashbe it class gender or race Such assignations of social differ-encesmdashwhere difference is neither One nor the Other but something elsebesides in-betweenmdash nd their agency in [] an interstitial future thatemerges in between the claims of the past and the needs of the present(1994219)

The kind of hyphenated hybridity that Bhabha outlines is already within theconceptual reach of interculturalism It is now time for a more sustained andsystematic engagement with the politics of its production

Notes

1 ldquoAgencyrdquo refers here to the potential to act or perform an action autonomously it registersdegrees of power and knowledge combined since to act autonomously is to understand theideological systems in which one is imbricated

2 For an extended discussion of multiculturalism in Canada Australia and the United Statessee Gunew (199351ndash65)

3 See Bennett (1996144ndash47) for examples of small ldquomrdquo multicultural theatre in which blind-cast productions of Shakespearersquos The Tempest unwittingly reproduced dominant culturalvalues

4 Guillermo Gomez-Pena critiques a similar model of intercultural encounter in his conceptof ldquocorporaterdquo or ldquotransnationalrdquo multiculturalism which he argues characterizes manybusiness and media conglomeratesrsquo current interest in difference Such difference performsthe ldquopassive roles of glossy images and exotic backgroundrdquo and real diversity is ldquo attenedand equalized by high production valuesrdquo (200112)

5 Examples of big ldquoMrdquo multicultural theatre include various projects done by El Teatro Cam-pesino (US) Talawa (Britain) Doppio Teatro and Urban Theatre Projects (Australia) andCahoots Theatre Projects (Canada) Of course there have been numerous projects (espe-cially in non-Western countries) that t within our de nition of multicultural theatre al-though the speci c practitioners involved may not identify their work in this way Examplesinclude projects by Five Arts Centre (Malaysia) William Kentridge and the HandspringPuppet Company (South Africa) Rustom Bharucha (India) and Gomez-Pena (USAMexico)

6 Our identi cation of ghetto and migrant theatres is in uenced by Richard Fotheringhamrsquoswork ([1987] 1992197ndash98)

7 For further explication of community theatre see Baz Kershaw (1992)

50 LoGilbert

8 For some time postcolonial theatre has been well theorized as a conceptual category albeita contested one however in-depth engagement with postcolonialism has been conspicu-ously absent from discussions of cross-cultural performance work in journals such as TDRSimilarly Patrice Pavisrsquos introduction to The Intercultural Performance Reader (1996) virtuallydismisses the eld of postcolonial theatre even though some of the bookrsquos contents clearly t within this grouping

9 Wole Soyinka Derek Walcott and Girish Karnad are the most prominent of a very largeand diverse group of dramatists who might be catagorized as ldquopostcolonialrdquo Well-knownindigenous theatre groups in countries permanently colonized by European powers includeKooemba Jdarra (Australia) Taki Rua Productions (New Zealand) Spiderwoman (USA) andNative Earth Performing Arts (Canada) See Gilbert and Tompkins (1996) for an extendedaccount of the eld

10 See the introduction to Christopher Balmersquos book Decolonizing the Stage Theatrical Syncre-tism and Post-Colonial Drama (1999) for an extended history of the conceptual category ofsyncretic theatre Balme has been the key theorist of this form of cross-cultural performancefor several years though he initially assessed its overarching function as cultural rapproche-ment rather than decolonization andor resistance

11 His notable theatre projects include Tooth of Crime (1973) Mother Courage (1975) The Pro-metheus Project (1983ndash85) and Three Sisters (1995ndash97)

12 The Tales from South Asia project as documented by Sharon Grady and Phillip Zarilli (1994)exhibits most of the features of the collaborative model The stated aims of the projectrsquosinitiators were to

develop a strategy of presentation and representation which engages an audienceandor students in ldquodifferencerdquo without stereotyping essentializing romanticizingthe ldquoother and keeping onersquos audience aware of contestation as a social realityrdquo(Grady and Zarilli 1994169)

13 Similar celebratory responses can be found in Williams (1992) and Wilshire and Wilshire(1989)

14 This position has been described elsewhere as ldquohappy hybridityrdquo (see Lo 2000)15 Schechnerrsquos 1989 article ldquoIntercultural Themesrdquo maps his thinking on the subject up to

the end of the 1980s see his 1996 interview with Pavis for a more recent account16 On a similar note Craig Latrell recently argued for a more complex reading of intercultural

exchange beyond the ldquovictim-victimizer narrativerdquo The non-Western cultures should notbe perceived as passive receivers of Western ideas but rather active manipulators of suchin uences (200045ndash46) His analysis of the speci city of theatrical agency is howeverweakened by the lack of attention to historical speci city and particularly the impact ofcolonialism in Singapore and Indonesia

17 For detailed explanation see Pavis (19924ndash20)18 Pavis adheres to the idea of turning the hourglass over for other perspectives but unlike

his earlier theorization which advocated the reversal as a way for the source culture tomonitor its own process of exchange the latest discussion appears to consolidate the primacyof the dominant culture

At the end of the process when spectators feel themselves buried alive under thesand of signs and symbols they have no other salvation than to give up and turn thehourglass upside down Then the perspective inverts and one must reverse andrelativize the sediments accumulated in the receiving culture and judge them fromthe point of view of alterity and relativity (199618)

19 For a fuller account of various modes of hybridity see Lo (2000152ndash55)20 See Gilbert (199813ndash25) for a more detailed discussion of the ways in which postcolonial

theory can be used to interpret ideological aspects of performance

References

Ambush Benny Sato1989 ldquoPluralism to the Bonerdquo American Theatre 615

Cross-Cultural Theatre Praxis 51

Ang Ien and John Stratton1994 ldquoMulticultural Imagined Communities Cultural Difference and National Iden-

tity in Australia and the USArdquo Continuum The Australian Journal of Media andCulture 8 2124ndash58

Ashcroft Bill Gareth Grif ths and Helen Tif n eds1995 The Post-Colonial Studies Reader London Routledge

Balme Christopher1999 Decolonizing the Stage Theatrical Syncretism and Post-Colonial Drama Oxford Ox-

ford University Press

Barba Eugenio1996 ldquoEurasian Theatrerdquo In The Intercultural Performance Reader edited by Patrice Pav-

ice 217ndash22 London Routledge

Bennett Susan1996 Performing Nostalgia Shifting Shakespeare and the ContemporaryPast LondonRout-

ledge

Bhabha Homi1994 The Location of Culture London Routledge

Bharucha Rustom1993 Theatre and the World Performance and the Politics of Culture London Routledge2000 The Politics of Cultural Practice Thinking through Theatre in an Age of Globalisation

London Athlone Press

Brandon James1990 ldquoContemporary Japanese Theatre Interculturalism and Intraculturalismrdquo In The

Dramatic Touch of Difference Theatre Own and Foreign edited by Erika Fischer-Lichte Michael Gissenwehrer and Josephine Riley 89ndash97 Tubingen Narr

Brown John Russell1998 ldquoTheatrical Pillage in Asia Redirecting the Intercultural Traf crdquo New Theatre

Quarterly 14 539ndash19

Carlson Marvin1990 ldquoPeter Brookrsquos The Mahabharata and Ariane Mnouchkinersquos LrsquoIndiade as Ex-

amples of Contemporary Cross-cultural Theatrerdquo In The Dramatic Touch of Dif-ference Theatre Own and Foreign edited by Erika Fischer-Lichte Michael Gissen-wehrer and Josephine Riley 49ndash56 Tubingen Narr

Carter David1986 ldquoThe Natives Are Getting Restless Nationalism Multiculturalism and Migrant

Writingrdquo Island Magazine 25263ndash8

Chin Daryl1991 ldquoInterculturalism Postmodernism Pluralismrdquo In Interculturalism and Performance

Writings from PAJ edited by Bonnie Marranca and Gautam Dasgupta 83ndash95New York PAJ Publications

Clifford James1994 ldquoDiasporasrdquo Cultural Anthropology 9 3 302ndash38

Dasgupta Gautam1991 ldquoThe Mahabharata Peter Brookrsquos Orientalismrdquo In Interculturalism and Perfor-

mance Writings from PAJ edited by Bonnie Marranca and Gautam Dasgupta 75ndash82 New York PAJ Publications

De Reuck Jenny2000 ldquolsquoThe mirror shattered into tiny piecesrsquo Reading Gender and Culture in the

Japan Foundation Asia Centrersquos LEARrdquo Intersections Online Asian Studies Journal3 6 httpwwwsshemurdocheduauintersectionsissue3jenny3html (12January 2001)

32 LoGilbert

providing an overview of current attempts to conceptualize these practicesHence what follows is at best a form of critical pieceworkmdashldquoprovisional inter-rogative and most of all motivated within an ongoing critical struggle over thepolitical terrain of textual interpretationrdquo (Slemon 19894) While the objectiveis to survey contemporary theorizing of cross-cultural theatre in the global artsmarket our analysis retains a certain Australasian perspective The schematic rep-resentations that follow are not intended to set up rigid categories of cross-culturaltheatre or to suggest that the terminology in the eld is or should be stable Weacknowledge that there is considerable leakage between the categories and thatmany terms take on different nuances in different sites

Although one could argue that all theatre is in a sense cross-cultural in thatperformance work necessitates the negotiation of cultural differences both tem-porally (across history) and spatially (across geographical and social categories)what dominates critical and institutional interest in cross-cultural experimenta-tions has been the encounters between the West and ldquothe restrdquo This Westernfascination with non-Western performing arts has a long history beginning inthe early part of the 20th century and intensifying over the past three decadesDespite the apparent trendiness of cross-cultural workmdashas witnessed on the in-ternational festival circuit in actor training institutions and in academic dis-coursemdashthere is not yet an integrated body of theory that sets up the perimetersof the eld of cross-cultural theatrical practice With the exception of RichardSchechnerrsquos pioneering work and Patrice Pavisrsquos more recently developed modelof intercultural theatre most of the existing critical work tends to concentrate onparticular instances of cultural exchange Viewed collectively the various attemptsto conceptualize the eld reveal a contested terrain where even the terminologiesare woolly to say the least

Jonathan Dollimorersquos reminder that ldquoto cross is not only to traverse but to mix(as in to cross-breed) and to contradict (as in to cross someone)rdquo (1991288)suggests some of the possibilities for cross-cultural theatre to radicalize and in-tervene in hegemonic arts practices One of the most popular manifestations ofthis generative conception of cross-cultural encounter is the idea of the hybrid(art form culture andor identity) But ldquoto crossrdquo can also imply deception ormisrepresentation as in to ldquodouble-crossrdquo while other kinds of crossings suchas territorial invasion or war for instance can also be unwelcome With thiscontradictory semantic eld in mind we use cross-cultural theatre as a generalumbrella term which encompasses a range of theatrical practices that might beschematized as follows

Diagram 1 Types of Cross-Cultural Theatre

Cross-Cultural Theatre Praxis 33

Multicultural Theatre

ldquoMulticulturalrdquo and ldquomulticulturalismrdquo carry site-speci c meanings Countriessuch as Australia and Canada where multiculturalism is an of cial federal policyhave very different experiences and strategies of managing cultural diversity incomparison to the Unites States and Britain where multiculturalism remainslargely a community-generated consciousness that has come to in uence statemanagement2 Ien Ang and Jon Stratton have summarized the key structuraldifference between Australian and US formations of multiculturalism

In the US the politicisation of multiculturalism has been largely from thebottom up its stances advanced by minority groups (African AmericansHispanic Americans Native Americans Asian Americans and so on) whoregard themselves as excluded from the American mainstream (and forwhom the multiculturalist idea acts as an af rmation of that exclusion)while in Australia multiculturalism is a centre piece of of cial govern-mental policy that is a top-bottom political strategy implemented bythose in power precisely to improve the inclusion of ethnic minoritieswithin national Australian culture (1994126)

Canadian multiculturalism shares many similarities with its Australian counter-part with the signi cant exception that indigenous cultures feature prominentlyin the Canadian model whereas Australian multiculturalism is still dominated bythe discourse of immigration which has the effect of positioning indigenousconcerns outside the multicultural paradigm In Britain by contrast multicul-turalism functions more as a descriptive term for the interaction among majorethnic groupings in ways that resemble the US situationThese differences partlyaccount for the different degrees to which the various countries invest in mul-ticulturalism as an element of their national identity The imperatives of multi-cultural policy have in uenced not only the material practice of cross-culturaltheatre but also its critical reception In Australia and Canada multicultural the-atre has come to signify a speci c cluster of artistic practices often supportedunder the state-sanctioned rubric of community development which has gen-erated a de ned body of critical literature By contrast in the US the mostprominent ethnic theatres (Asian American African American and Hispanic)have not been integrated to the same extent under an overarching framework ofthe ldquomulticulturalrdquo

Broadly speaking there are two major types of multicultural theatre small ldquomrdquomulticultural theatre and big ldquoMrdquo multicultural theatre

Small ldquomrdquo multicultural theatre refers to theatre works featuring a racially mixedcast that do not actively draw attention to cultural differences among performersor to the tensions between the text and the production content One of the mostcommon strategies of small ldquomrdquo multicultural theatre is to use nontraditional orldquoblind castingrdquomdashusually in productions of canonical plays staged for a mainstreamaudiencemdashto signal a commitment to cultural pluralism While such castingopens up employment opportunities for minority-group actors it is a politicallyconservative practice that gives the appearance of diversity without necessarilyconfronting the hegemony of the dominant culture

In this respect Benny Ambush argues that color-blind casting does not allowactors to bring what is special about them to their roles but rather ldquowhitewashesaesthetically different peoplerdquo inviting spectators to think that racial andor cul-tural speci cities do not ldquomatterrdquo (19895) Used uncritically multiculturalcastingstrategies have the effect of sustaining a familiar view of the world by subsuming

34 LoGilbert

the defamiliarizing potential created by the lack of ldquo trdquo between actor and roleinto the normative conventions of Western theatrical realism3

Another common theatrical form included in the small ldquomrdquo multiculturalcate-gory is folkloric display a performance practice that showcases speci c culturalart forms in discrete categories often within a festival model Based primarily onthe fetishization of cultural difference folkloric theatre trades in notionsof historytradition and authenticity in order to gain recognition for the cultural capital ofdisenfranchised groups But as Gareth Grif ths warns authenticity has its owntraps it ldquomay overwrite and overdetermine the full range of representationsrdquothrough which community identities are articulated (199472) and ldquodisavow pos-sibilities of hybridized subjectsrdquo (199476) Folkloricization allows for a selectivepast but not a present or a future According to David Carter instead of a modeof interaction it presents ldquoa model of performanceobservation [of] objectsub-jectrdquo (19865)4

Big ldquoMrdquo multicultural theatre is generally a counterdiscursive practice that aimsto promote cultural diversity access to cultural expression and participation inthe symbolic space of the national narrative Its processes and products are in-formed by an expressed agenda that speaks to a politics of marginality5 Canadaand Australia have well-established track records in this form of theatre largelybecause of cial multiculturalism has played an increasingly signi cant role innation-building since the 1970s This is not to say that all big ldquoMrdquo multiculturaltheatre practice is cross-cultural as the following discussion of ghetto theatredemonstrates

Several types of theatre practice fall under the broad category of big ldquoMrdquomulticultural theatre ghetto theatre migrant theatre and community theatre6

Ghetto theatre tends to be monocultural it is staged for and by a speci c ethniccommunity and is usually communicated in the languages of that communityThe political ef cacy of this type of multicultural intervention is arguably limitedsince the performances are largely ldquoin-houserdquo and tend to focus on narrativesabout origins and loss Much ghetto theatre is infused with a nostalgic privilegingof the homeland (real or imagined) as seen from a diasporic perspective with theresult that more radical cross-cultural negotiations are muted

Migrant theatre is centrally concerned with narratives of migration and adap-tation often using a combination of ethno-speci c languages to denote culturalin-between-ness Cross-cultural negotiation is more visible in migrant theatrewhere there is an emerging exploration of cultural hybridity re ected in aestheticform as well as narrative content While one cultural group is usually responsiblefor the production and staging of migrant theatre it frequently plays not only tothat group but also to wider audiences albeit to a lesser extent hence cross-cultural negotiations may also occur at the level of reception

Community theatre is characterized by social engagement it is theatre primarilycommitted to bringing about actual change in speci c communities This focuson cultural activism is seen as an oppositional practice concerned with subvertingthose ldquodominant cultural practices which render people passive [as] consumersrdquoof imposed cultural commodities (Watt 199163) A commitment to cultural de-mocracy distinguishes community theatre from other types of community-generated performances that go under the general rubric of ldquoamateurrdquo theatreThe aesthetics of community theatre are shaped by the culture of its audience7

The constitution of the performance group and the subject matter may be or-ganized around common interests (such as gender ethnicity or shared socialexperiences) or de ned in terms of geographical location Multicultural com-munity theatre generally incorporates a range of languages and cultural resourcesincluding performing traditions drawn from the community Community arts

Cross-Cultural Theatre Praxis 35

workers are often employed to facilitate the work and the performances are typ-ically presented back to the community as well as to ldquooutsidersrdquo Cross-culturalnegotiations therefore occur at a number of levels in this type of theatre

Postcolonial Theatre

While ldquopostcolonial theatrerdquo has sometimes been used as a portmanteau de-scriptor for performance work expressing any kind of resistance politics particu-larly concerning race class andor gender oppression the term more often refersto a range of theatre texts and practices that have emerged from cultures subjectedto Western imperialism8 In its more narrowly focused de nition postcolonialtheatre is a geopolitical category designating both a historical and a discursiverelation to imperialism whether that phenomenon is treated critically or ambi-valently (see Gilbert and Tompkins 19962ndash7) The discursive axis of postcolonialtheatremdashthat it engages with imperialism in either explicit or implicit waysmdashmoves away from concepts of a naotildeve teleological sequence in which postcolo-nialism merely supersedes colonialism Hence speci c theatre practices aredeemed postcolonial not simply because of their cultural origins but also becauseof their textual and performative features While the best known postcolonialtheatre derives from indigenous groups in areas formerly colonized by Europeanandor American cultures some settler theatre in such regions is included (ifsometimes contentiously) in this category9

Most postcolonial theatre is driven by a political imperative to interrogate thecultural hegemony that underlies imperial systems of governance education so-cial and economic organization and representation Its discourses of resistancespeak primarily to the colonizing projects of Western imperial centers andor tothe neocolonial pressures of localregional postindependence regimes Resistanceis expressed in genres ranging from realism agitprop and forum theatre to po-litical satires and allegories where criticism of various ldquosensitiverdquo issues may beldquomutedrdquo to avoid the censorship of a politically repressive government or rulingclass In this context resistance is not conceptualized as pure or simply thereavailable in texts or social practices rather it is grounded in multiple and some-times contradictory structures never easily located because it is partial incom-plete ambiguous and often complicit in the apparatus it seeks to transgress Thenotion of resistance as unstable and potentially ambivalent strengthens the casefor the inclusion of some settler theatre in the postcolonial category since asStephen Slemon maintains postcolonialism is concerned with ldquothe project ofarticulating the formsmdashand modes and tropes and guresmdashof anti-colonial tex-tual resistance wherever they occur and in all their guisesrdquo (199035)

Postcolonial theatre usually involves cross-cultural negotiation at the drama-turgical and aesthetic levels because of the historical contact between culturesCross-cultural processes may also be an important part of the working practicesespecially in regions with bicultural or multicultural populations While not allpostcolonial theatre is necessarily cross-cultural it frequently assumes some kindof interpretive encounter between differently empowered cultural groups Interms of reception audiences for postcolonial theatre are complex typically vary-ing across geographical regions while being differentially in uenced by class andrace For instance Aboriginal theatre in Australia plays primarily to the dominantldquowhiterdquo culture while Wole Soyinkarsquos work nds its main audience among theeducated classes of Nigerian society as well as among cosmopolitan groups in-ternationally

Postcolonial theatre has been discussed under two main categories syncretictheatre and nonsyncretic theatre Syncretic theatre integrates performance elements

36 LoGilbert

of different cultures into a form that aims to retain the cultural integrity of thespeci c materials used while forging new texts and theatre practices10 This in-tegrative process tends to highlight rather than disguise shifts in the meaningfunction and value of cultural fragments as they are moved from their traditionalcontexts In postcolonial societies syncretic theatre generally involves the incor-poration of indigenous material into a Western dramaturgical framework whichis itself modi ed by the fusion process Christopher Balme argues that such syn-cretism activates a ldquocultural and aesthetic semiotic recoding that ultimately ques-tions the basis of normative Western dramardquo this creative endeavor is to bedistinguished from ldquotheatrical exoticismrdquo in which ldquoindigenous cultural texts arearbitrarily recoded and semanticised in a Western aesthetic and ideological framerdquowhere they tend to signify mere alterity (19994ndash5) Well-known examples ofsyncretic postcolonial theatre include works by Sistren Theatre Collective andDerek Walcott in the Caribbean Girish Karnad in India and Wole Soyinka andFemi Oso san in Nigeria A signi cant number of Aboriginal Maori and nativeNorth American plays also use syncretic performance strategies as part of theirlarger agenda of cultural recuperation

Nonsyncretic theatre by de nition does not merge disparate cultural forms butrather uses imposed imperial genresaesthetics or less often wholly indigenousones to voice postcolonial concerns For instance Western-style realism has beenwidely used to stage anticolonial narratives emanating from both indigenous andsettler communities Among the latter Australiarsquos Louis Nowra and CanadarsquosSharon Pollock gure as high-pro le playwrights whose work could be charac-terized as postcolonial but not syncretic The distinction between syncretic andnonsyncretic theatre is more dif cult to maintain in cases such as indigenousperformances of Shakespearian texts where European characters are enacted byldquoblackrdquo or ldquocoloredrdquo actors instituting tension between the performance at issueand the tradition that it transgresses It could be argued here that syncretisminheres in the juxtaposition of the performersrsquo bodies (as culturally coded sign-systems) to scripts ineluctably embedded with markers of a different culture Thisexample suggests that postcolonial theatre is best conceptualized as exhibitingvarying degrees of syncretism rather than falling neatly into opposing categories

Intercultural Theatre

Whereas multicultural theatre is often the effect of state-determined culturalmanagement andor a grassroots response to the ldquolived realityrdquo of cultural plu-ralism and postcolonial theatre is produced as part of (and in opposition to) ahistorical process of imperialism and neoimperialism intercultural theatre is char-acterized as a ldquovoluntarist intervention circumscribed by the agencies of the stateand the marketrdquo (Bharucha 200033) Multicultural theatre functions within astatist framework premised on ideals of citizenship and the management of cul-turalethnic difference while intercultural theatre and to a certain extent post-colonial theatre have more latitude to explore and critique alternative formsof citizenship and identity across and beyond national boundaries although thesubjectivities they produce are not wholly free of state mediation Put simplyintercultural theatre is a hybrid derived from an intentional encounter betweencultures and performing traditions It is primarily a Western-based tradition witha lineage in modernist experimentation through the work of Tairov MeyerholdBrecht Artaud and Grotowski More recently intercultural theatre has beenassociated with the works of Richard Schechner Peter Brook Eugenio BarbaAriane Mnouchkine Robert Wilson Tadashi Suzuki and Ong Keng Sen Evenwhen intercultural exchanges take place within the ldquonon-Westrdquo they are often

Cross-Cultural Theatre Praxis 37

mediated through Western culture andor economics Ongrsquos ldquoPan-Asianrdquo spec-taculars LEAR (1997) and Desdemona (1999) are cases in point (see De Reuck2000 and Grehan 2000)

One only has to refer to Pavisrsquos The Intercultural Performance Reader (1996) toappreciate the range of approaches encompassed by the term ldquointerculturalismrdquoand the extent to which it evades any neat de nition While attempting to mapdevelopments in the eld The Reader documents diverse positions that fore-ground interculturalism as a contested site for both theory and practice Despitethis apparent diversity there is evidence pointing to interculturalism as a Westernvision of exchange Pavis himself acknowledges this bias explaining that the col-lection was ldquolargely produced by and aimed at a European and Anglo-Americanreadershiprdquo (199625) The privileging of the West is evident in the ways in whichthe essays are grouped within the book for instance the juxtapositioning of PartII titled ldquoIntercultural Performance from the Western Point of Viewrdquo with PartIII ldquoIntercultural Performance from Another Point of Viewrdquo replicates the ldquoWestand the restrdquo binary paradigm and reveals a problematic ideological aporia Putdifferently interculturalism as it has been theorized and documented thus far isalready overdetermined by the West

Although Pavis echoing Erika Fischer-Lichte claims that it is too soon topropose a global theory of interculturalism (19961) there already exists a glob-alizing practice that demands further political and ethical interrogationSimilarlyJulie Holledge and Joanne Tompkins (2000) contend that intercultural theatre istoo varied and process-based to warrant a general theory They opt instead for asite-speci c study of intercultural projects But this reluctance to engage with theldquobig picturerdquo arguably runs the risk of consolidating the ideological premises ofinterculturalism as a Western-dominated form of knowledge production By priv-ileging content speci city the false dichotomy between praxis and theory is main-tained this also has the effect of relegating issues of ethics to the particular andthe ldquoone off rdquo rather than relating these to larger issues of knowledge formationwithin institutional national and global contexts

Our study of a range of intercultural practice and the theoretical discussion ithas generated suggests that the eld can be loosely divided into three subcate-gories

Transcultural theatre aims to transcend culture-speci c codi cation in order toreach a more universal human condition Transcultural directors are interested inparticularities and traditions only insofar as they enable the directors to identifyaspects of commonality rather than difference (Pavis 19966) There are manyvariations to this search for the universal In the case of Peter Brook transcen-dence of the particular is a necessary part of the mythic quest for origins andWestern theatrersquos supposed loss of ldquopurityrdquo This return to sources and the reap-propriation of primitive languages is a metaphysical quest for a truth that holdseverywhere and at any time irrespective of historical or cultural differences InOrghast (1970) for instance Brook attempted to create an original tonal languageby tapping into a primeval consciousness Eugenio Barbarsquos work in ISTA (Inter-national School of Theatre Anthropology) is another form of transculturaltheatrePavis distinguishes Barbarsquos work as ldquopreculturalrdquo it does not aim to identify thecommon origins of cultures in Brookrsquos way but rather seeks what is common toldquoEasternrdquo and ldquoWesternrdquo theatre practitioners before they become individualizedor ldquoacculturatedrdquo in particular traditions and techniques of performance (19967)According to Barba the goal is to compare the work methods of both Easternand Western theatre and ldquoto reach down into a common technical substratumrdquowhich is ldquothe domain of pre-expressivity [] At this pre-expressive level theprinciples are the same even though they nurture the enormous expressive dif-

38 LoGilbert

ferences which exist between one tradition and another one actor and anotherrdquo(1996220) Barba stresses that these principles are analogous to one another ratherthan homologous nevertheless his search for an essence beyond socialization ischaracteristic of the desire to transcend social and cultural ldquotrappingsrdquo in a movetoward a ldquopurerrdquo mode of communication and theatrical presence

Intracultural theatre is Rustom Bharucharsquos term to denote cultural encountersbetween and across speci c communities and regions within the nation-stateMore speci cally in relation to his own ldquointraculturalrdquo work Bharucha pointsto internal diversity within the boundaries of a particular region or nation Thissense of the intracultural has similarities to the multicultural

insofar as they assume either the interaction or the coexistence of regionaland local cultures within the larger framework of the nation-state How-ever while the ldquointrardquo prioritizes the interactivity and translation of di-verse cultures the ldquomultirdquo upholds a notion of cohesiveness (Bharucha20009)

In this way intracultural theatre serves a critical function in challenging ldquoorgan-icist notions of culture by highlighting the deeply fragmented and divided society[] that multicultural rhetoric of the state refuses to acknowledgerdquo (Bharucha20009)

Extracultural theatre refers to theatre exchanges that are conducted along a West-East and North-South axis The converse of intraculturalism this form of inter-culturalism goes back to the modernist pioneers who looked to the non-West torejuvenate Western art Schechner is the best-known contemporary exponent ofthis practice his experimental productions dating back to the late 1960s with thestaging of a West Irian birth ritual in Dionysus in 69 (1968) and subsequentlydeveloping through numerous theatre projects and theoretical essays in the eld11

While extracultural theatre can encompass some forms of transcultural theatre asin Brookrsquos Mahabharata (1985) it also includes intercultural experiments whichdo not aim to relativize or transcend cultural differences but rather to celebrateand even interrogate such differences as a source of cultural empowerment andaesthetic richness As a category of analysis extracultural theatre always begsquestions about the power dynamics inherent in the economic and political lo-cation of the participating cultures even if such questions are evaded in accountsof actual practice

The remainder of this essay will focus primarily on this extracultural form ofintercultural theatre

Modes of Conducting Intercultural Theatre

The range of working methods employed in intercultural theatre can generallybe positioned along a continuum One pole of the continuum is characterizedby a collaborative mode of exchange while the opposite pole is characterized asimperialistic Most intercultural theatre occurs somewhere between these twoextremes and speci c projects may shift along the continuum depending on thephase of cultural production It is vital that the continuum is conceived in pro-cessual rather than xed terms in order to foreground intercultural exchange asa dynamic process rather than a static transaction

Diagram 2 Continuum ofIntercultural Modes

Cross-Cultural Theatre Praxis 39

Collaborative

Intercultural exchange at this end of the continuum tends to emphasize theprocesses and politics of exchange rather than the theatrical product per se Thisform of theatre-making places great importance on cultural negotiations at alllevels from the highly personal and individualistic to the ldquosuperstructuralrdquo andinstitutional Collaborative interculturalism is often community-generated ratherthan market andor state-driven There is less of a focus on maintaining theldquopurityrdquo of the various cultures for exotic display The exchange process is oftenmarked by tension and incommensurability While there is a general desire tomaintain equitable power relations between partners the aim is not to producea harmonious experience of theatre-making but rather to explore the fullness ofcultural exchange in all its contradictions and convergences for all parties Thetheatre product may similarly resist forced synthesis revealing instead both thepositive and negative aspects of the encounter12 Ferdinand Ortizrsquos concept oftransculturation (not to be confused with transculturalism) offers a useful way ofanalyzing collaborative interculturalism by going beyond a model of easy fusionto account for both acquisition and loss at the same time In the transculturationprocess elements of each system of culture are lost in the creation of a thirdsystem Cultural encounter of this kind can be potentially counterhegemonic itallows minor cultures to act on dominant ones rather than merely submit tocultural loss in the transaction (see Taylor 199162ndash63)

Imperialistic

Intercultural exchange at this end of the continuum is often driven by a senseof Western culture as bankrupt and in need of invigoration from the non-WestThe resulting theatre tends to tap into ldquoOtherrdquo cultural traditions that are per-ceived as ldquoauthenticrdquo and uncontaminated by (Western) modernity Interculturalpractice in this mode is largely an aesthetic response to cultural diversity Thereis a discernible difference in agency between partners such inequity is oftenhistorically based and may continue in the present through economic politicaland technological dominance This form of theatre tends to be product-orientedand usually produced for the dominant culturersquos consumption Performances areoften highly spectacular with emphasis placed on the aesthetic and formal qualitiesof the mise-en-scene The intercultural work of practitioners such as ArianeMnouchkine has been described as imperialist though Mnouchkine refutes thischarge preferring to see her appropriations of Asian performing traditions as aform of indebtedness and ldquohomagerdquo Maria Shevtsova defends this position byasserting that Mnouchkine does not purport to use the ldquooriginalrdquo art form andthat her ldquoborrowingrdquo practices should be understood within the logic of herWestern system of aestheticism (1997102)

Responses to Interculturalism

Given the range of intercultural modalities it is not surprising that criticaltheoretical responses are similarly varied Generally speaking most commentatorshave analyzed interculturalism as practice their responses ranging from the ce-lebratory to the highly critical Schechnerrsquos earlier writings about interculturalpractice exemplify many aspects of the celebratory stance13 Schechner refers tothe intercultural experimentations in the US from the 1950s to the mid rsquo70s asa ldquogolden age of innocencerdquo

People didnrsquot question too much whether or not this interculturalism []was a continuation of colonialism a further exploitation of other cultures

40 LoGilbert

There was something simply celebratory about discovering how diversethe world was how many performance genres there were and how wecould enrich our own experience by borrowing stealing exchanging(198219)

This neoliberal embrace of cultural difference celebrates the possibilities of cul-tural fusion and the construction of radical subjectivities beyond national andethnic boundaries Intercultural practice in this sense is deeply imbricated inglobalization and the perceived deterritorialization of social cultural and politicalboundaries for those in the developed world even if this is not often acknowl-edged by the critics and practitioners themselves14 It should be noted thatSchechnerrsquos position has shifted signi cantly since then15 over the last decade inparticular his critical work shows less of a tendency to idealize cross-culturalexchange and a keener awareness of power relations He also acknowledges the

misunderstandings broken languages and failed transactions that occurwhen and where cultures collide overlap or pull away from each otherThese are seen not as obstacles to be overcome but as fertile rifts or erup-tions full of creative potential (19913)

At the other end of the scale is the ethical critique of intercultural practice asinvasive globalization Daryl Chin argues that

Interculturalism hinges on the questions of autonomy and empowermentTo deploy elements from the symbol system of another culture is a verydelicate enterprise In its crudest terms the question is when does thatusage act as cultural imperialism Forcing elements from disparate culturestogether does not seem to be a solution that makes much sense aestheti-cally ethically or philosophically What does that prove that the knowl-edge of other cultures exists That information about other cultures nowis readily available (199194)

For Bharucha likewise interculturalism cannot be separated from a larger his-tory of colonialism and orientalism (see also Dasgupta 1991) He contends thatinterculturalism is an inherently ethnocentric practice which seeks to synthesizecultural difference rather than respect its individual histories

The problem arises [] when the preoccupation with the ldquoself rdquo over-powers the representation of ldquootherrdquo cultures [and] when the Other isnot another but the projection of onersquos ego Then all one has is a glori -cation of the self and a co-option of other cultures in the name of repre-sentation (199328)

John Russell Brown adds

Exchange borrowing trade or looting across major frontiers diminishesany theatre because it transgresses its inherited reliance on the societyfrom which the drama takes its life and for which it was intended to beperformed [] However worthily it is intended intercultural theatricalexchange is in fact a form of pillage and the result is fancy-dress pre-tence or at best the creation of a small zoo in which no creature has itsfull life (199814)

Cross-Cultural Theatre Praxis 41

Such moral critiques while absolutely essential to the politicizing of intercul-turalism risk instigating a kind of paralysis insofar as they suggest that virtuallyno form of theatrical exchange can be ethical16 This position is clearly untenablefor a number of practitioners especially those whose art is derived from (andaims to explore) experiences of cultural hybridity For instance performanceartisttheorist Guillermo Gomez-Pena a self-confessed ldquochild of crisis and cul-tural syncretismrdquo (199338) sees his own work (and the desirable future of Amer-ican theatre) as inevitably pluralistic unavoidably intercultural But he is alsoacutely aware of the implications of intercultural work noting that it is ldquofunda-mental to address relationships of power and assumptions about privilege amongthe participating artists communities and countriesrdquo in order to develop ethicalmodels of theatrical exchange (19969) To facilitate this Gomez-Pena calls for amuch more rigorous public debate about cultural issues in general about equityand diversity about de nitions of ldquomulti- inter- intra- and cross-culturalrdquoabout which encounters between cultures are ldquosymmetrical and desirable andwhich are more reactionaryrdquo (199357) In projects such as Temple of Confessions(1994) A Seminar on Museum Race Relations (1995) and Mexterminator Project(1999)mdashdeliberately provocative works that are at times even ldquounethicalrdquomdashGomez-Pena relentlessly stages aspects of this debate always avoiding de nitiveanswers

Theoretical Models of Interculturalism

While many critics have posed theoretical challenges to the intercultural en-terprise there have been surprisingly few attempts to formulate a comprehensivemodel of intercultural exchange Marvin Carlson has offered a scale consisting ofseven categories of cross-cultural in uence based on ldquopossible relationships be-tween the culturally familiar and the culturally foreignrdquo (199050) While usefulfor differentiating types of projects this scale does not move beyond an essentiallytaxonomic analysis of the eld Fischer-Lichte takes a different tack focusingspeci cally on the adaptation process which she insists follows a model of ldquopro-ductive receptionrdquo rather than one of translation (1997154ndash55) Productive re-ception emphasizes aspects of a performance caused or in uenced by receptionand is aligned in Fischer-Lichtersquos work with the project of revitalizing tired the-atrical practices though she does not elaborate on the precise dynamics involved

Pavis has thus far been the only critic able to sustain a comprehensive modelof intercultural exchange His hourglass model depicts in its upper bowl theforeign or source culture ldquowhich is more or less codi ed and solidi ed in diverseanthropological sociocultural or artistic modelizationsrdquo (19924) This is repre-sented by lters 1 and 2 in the diagram below The ldquograins of culturerdquo trickledown to the lower bowl and are rearranged in the process The lters 3 through11 put in place by the target culture and the observer largely determine the nalformation of the grains17 The model focuses on ldquothe intercultural transfer be-tween source and target culturerdquo as a way of depicting the relativity of the notionof culture and the complicated relationship between partners in the exchange(19925)

Critique of the Hourglass Model

In practice Pavisrsquos hourglass is an accurate model of most intercultural workof the extracultural kind But the modelrsquos strength is also its weakness it cannotaccount for alternative and more collaborative forms of intercultural exchangeDespite Pavisrsquos wariness of a translationcommunication model of intercultural-ism his elaboration of the process of cultural transfer reveals its dependence on

42 LoGilbert

translation theory The main problem with this model is that it assumes a one-way cultural ow based on a hierarchy of privilege even though Pavis attemptsto relativize the power relations by claiming that the hourglass can be turnedupside-down ldquoas soon as the users of a foreign culture ask themselves how theycan communicate their own culture to another target culturerdquo (19925) Thishowever assumes that there is a ldquolevel-playing eldrdquo between the partners in theexchange and does not account for the fact that the bene ts of globalization andthe permeability of cultures and political systems are accessed differentially fordifferent communities and nations

A translation model of interculturalism therefore runs the risk of reproducingstrategies of containment As Tejaswine Niranjana points out

By employing certain modes of representing the othermdashwhich it therebyalso brings into beingmdashtranslation reinforces hegemonic versions of thecolonized helping them acquire the status of what Edward Said calls rep-resentations or objects without history (19923)

Diagram 3 Pavisrsquos hour-glass Model of InterculturalTheatre

Cross-Cultural Theatre Praxis 43

Pavis is not unaware of this danger

If [the hourglass] is only a mill it will blend the source culture destroy itsevery speci city and drop into the lower bowl an inert and deformed sub-stance which will have lost its original modeling without being moldedinto that of the target culture If it is only a funnel it will indiscriminatelyabsorb the initial substance without reshaping it through the series of l-ters or leaving any trace of the original matter (19925)

Having said this however Pavis is unable to account for interculturalism as aprocess of political negotiation For example he argues that the mise-en-sceneas the central site of interculturalism functions as a ldquokind of reglage (lsquo ne-tuningrsquo)rdquo which mediates between different contexts cultural backgrounds andtraditions (19926) ldquoFine-tuningrdquo serves to smooth over differences in ways thatbecome intelligible for the target culture Similarly ldquoreception-adaptersrdquo ( lter8) ll the lacunae in the transfer of cultural content and dissipate the tensions ofincommensurability in order to create a ldquoreadablerdquo text for the target culture

The teleology of the hourglass model ultimately reduces interculturalexchangeto an alimentary process According to this logic the body belongs to the targetculture while the source culture becomes the food which must be digested andassimilated As Pavis notes only the grains that are ldquosuf ciently nerdquo will ldquo owthrough [the hourglass neck] without any troublerdquo (19924) His model cannotaccount for blockage collisions and retroaction as sites of either intervention orresistance In the nal analysis intercultural exchange according to the hourglassmodel is a reductive process which distills cultural difference into essences thatcan be readily absorbed by the target culture While Pavis does acknowledge thein uence of the social context ( lters 10B and 10C) the temporally bound meta-phor of the hourglass suggests that sociohistorical factors rather than in ectingthe entire intercultural process simply constitute the nal lter before the the-atrical product is consumed by the target culture In short the hourglass modelis premised on aesthetics rather than on politics

Pavis does not stray far from this model in his more recent theorization of the eld (1996) proffering instead a more careful schematization of different formsand modes of intercultural practice Although he does acknowledge the proble-matics of power inequities between partners in the exchange noting that ldquotherecan be no sense in which Asian perspectives are always reversible and symmetricalwith those of the Westmdashas a purely functionalist use of the hourglass turnedover and over ad in nitum might lead us naively to believerdquo (19962) there islittle sense that he has revised the translation principles underlying his model18

Pavis takes account of some of the recent ethical critiques of interculturalismandis particularly wary of it being absorbed into a postmodernist form of culturalrelativism Although he claims that ldquoexchange implies a theory and an ethics ofalterityrdquo (199611) he does not foreground the ethical dimension in any discern-ible way Signi cantly Pavis claims that the kind of intercultural practice thatholds the most potential for ldquoresistance against standardization against the Eu-ropeanization of super-productionsrdquo is the ldquointer-corporeal work in which anactor confronts hisher technique and professional identity with those of theothersrdquo (1996150) By locating the potential for agency at this microscopic levelof actor training Pavis reveals the limitations of the hourglass model as an effectivetemplate for a politicized theorization of the entire eld of interculturalism

Matrixing Interculturalism and Postcolonialism

One way of approaching the problems raised by Pavisrsquos model of interculturaltheatre is to consider its mechanisms through the lens of postcolonial theory

44 LoGilbert

Despite their shared concern with the phenomenon of cultural encounter the-ories of interculturalism and postcolonialism have thus far developed as more orless asymmetrical discourses the former having roots in theatre anthropology(viaVictor Turner) and semiotics the latter in literary and cultural studies as well asin psychoanalysis (via Frantz Fanon) and poststructuralism Of the two discoursespostcolonial theory has been the most consistently political taking as its primaryimperative the task of exposing and redressing unequal power relationships be-tween cultures whereas interculturalism has concerned itself more often with theaesthetics of cultural transfer What postcolonial theory offers to current debatesabout interculturalism is a framework for analyzing such thorny issues as agencyhybridity and authenticity issues that lie at the heart of intercultural praxis Withits insistent stress on historicity and speci city postcolonial theory offers ways ofrelocating the dynamics of intercultural theatre within identi able elds of so-ciopolitical and historical relations This contextualizing enables us to ask at anypoint in the production and reception processes of intercultural work questionsabout individual and collective power Whose economic andor political interestsare being served How is the working process represented to the target audienceand why Who is the target audience and how can differences be addressed withinthis constituency How does a speci c intercultural event impact on the widersociopolitical environment

The term ldquointerculturalrdquo suggests an exploration of the interstice betweencultures it draws our attention to the hyphenated third space separating andconnecting different peoples The act of crossing cultures (with reference to Dol-limorersquos notions of travesty hybridity and con ict) should ideally activate bothcentrifugal and centripetal forces in the process of mutual contamination andinteraction This is an aspect which Pavisrsquos unilinear model of interculturalismcannot take into account We would therefore like to propose an alternativemodel of intercultural exchange which for the purposes of this essay focuses onthe ldquobig picturerdquo and uses some of Pavisrsquos categories and terminologies Ourmodel is both a template for an intercultural practice that encourages more mu-tuality and an attempted representation of the mutuality that has already existedat some level even if it has been limited and nonre exive indeed suppressed inmuch theorizing of particular projects Our aim is to adapt what is essentially anappropriativeassimilationist model into a more collaborativenegotiated oneThe model we have in mind draws inspiration from a toy we used to play withas children in both Malaysia and Australia The toy consisted of a piece of elasticstrung through the middle of a plastic disc The elastic string is held at each endwith the disc supported in the center By rotating the hands in a circular motionthe disc is rotated outward Once the disc is rotating the elastic is alternatelytightened and released to continue the spinning of the disc The disc moves ineither direction along the string depending on whether the tension is generatedby the left or the right hand

In our model intercultural exchange is represented as a two-way ow Bothpartners are considered cultural sources while the target culture is positionedalong the continuum between them The location of the target culture is not xed its position remains uid and depending on where and how the exchangeprocess takes place shifts along the continuum For instance if the performancetakes place in the domain of source culture B then the position of the targetculture moves closer to source Brsquos end of the continuum This uidity not onlyforegrounds the dialogic nature of intercultural exchange but also takes into ac-count the possibility of power disparity in the partnership

Both source cultures bring to the theatrical project cultural apparatuses shapedby their respective sociocultural milieu ( lters 1 and 2) and both undergo a seriesof transformations and challenges in the process of exchange ( lters 3 through 9)

Cross-Cultural Theatre Praxis 45

SourceCulture B

1 cultural modeling2 artistic modeling3 work of adaptation4 preparatory work by

actors5 choice of theatrical

form6 artistic modeling of

target culture7 sociological amp

anthropologicalmodeling of targetculture

8 cultural modeling oftarget culture

9 given and anticipatedconsequences

SourceCulture A

cultural modeling

artistic modeling

work of adaptation

preparatory work byactors

choice of theatricalform

artistic modeling oftarget culture

sociological ampanthropologicalmodeling of targetculture

cultural modeling oftarget culture

given and anticipatedconsequences

SociopoliticalContext

InterculturalProcess for

TargetCulture

SociopoliticalContext

1234

5

6

7

8

9

in relation to each other and in anticipation of the target culture Even if thetarget culture is aligned with one of the source cultures both partners still undergoa similar process of ltration and hybridization however differently experiencedPositioned at the tension between source cultures intercultural exchange is char-acterized both by gain and by loss attraction and disavowal This dialogism isrepresented by the centrifugal and centripetal forces indicated in the diagramabove The proposed model locates all intercultural activity within an identi ablesociopolitical context This serves not only to foreground the inseparability ofartistic endeavors from sociopolitical relations but also to remind us that theoryand reading strategies are themselves deeply imbricated in speci c histories andpolitics

Our model of intercultural theatre rests on a notion of differentiated hybriditythat works in multiple and sometimes opposing ways19 Postcolonial theory haslong recognized that particular modes of hybridity are pinned to social politicaland economic factors which are conditioned in turn by historical experiencesof cultural encounters Extensive debate about the political purchase of hybridityhas prompted scholars such as Robert Young (1995) to distinguish between twokinds of hybridity organic and intentional Organic hybridity which has beenaligned with creolization and metissage is close to the fusion model oftenmanifestin intercultural theory It results in new cultural practices and identities withoutconscious contestation and serves a stabilizing function in settling cultural dif-ferences In this kind of hybridity agency inheres in cosmopolitanism the abilityto cross between cultures and to master their hybrid forms In contrast intentionalhybridity focuses on the process of negotiation between different practices andpoints of view It is characterized by division and separation and tends to be self-re exive with the negotiation process inevitably pinpointing areas of con ict In

Diagram 4 ProposedModel for Interculturalism

46 LoGilbert

this instance agency hinges on the degree to which cultural forms resist dilutionandor co-option According to Young the two categories of hybridity the in-tentional and the organic can be in operation at the same time resulting in anantithetical movement of coalescence and antagonism This offers a

dialectical model for cultural interaction an organic hybridity which willtend towards fusion in con ict with intentional hybridity which enables acontestatory activity a politicized setting of cultural differences againsteach other dialogically (199522)

Debates about hybridity in postcolonial theory tend to go hand in hand withdiscussions of authenticity Grif ths reminds us that ldquoauthenticityrdquo is a politicallycharged concept rather than a ldquonaturalrdquo or preexisting attribute While it may bepolitically exigent for non-Western peoples to deploy discourses of authenticityin order to bolster their cultural authority in the hands of Western critics andcommentators the sign of the ldquoauthenticrdquo can easily become a fetishized com-modity that grounds the legitimacy of other cultures ldquonot in their practice butin our desirerdquo (Grif ths 199482) That much intercultural theatre has been drivenby an intense interest in harnessing ldquotraditionalrdquo performance forms suggests weshould treat authenticity with caution recognizing that it registers and respondsto hierarchies of power In this context the ability to manipulate markers ofauthenticity becomes another measure of agency

Sites of Intervention

If postcolonialism is to denaturalize the universalist vision of the more egre-gious kinds of interculturalism it must bring into focus such aspects of theatre aslanguage space the body costume and spectatorship as ideologically laden signsystems as well as potential sites of hybridity By brie y outlining politicized waysof reading such sign systems20 we hope in the nal section of this essay to suggestpathways into intercultural projects that resist an unproblematized transfer of cul-ture

On the whole intercultural theatre has tended to favor visual spectacle overlinguistic innovation nevertheless there are signi cant language-based issues thatpertain to both its processes and products An elementary but immensely im-portant question is the matter of whose language is used for everyday commu-nication during the devising and rehearsing of speci c productions The fact thatEnglish has become the lingua franca in an increasingly globalized arts communitygives its native speakers considerable power to substantiate their views andorsecure their particular agendas In this respect we should remember that thewide-scale imposition of imperial languages on non-Western peoples has consti-tuted an insidious form of epistemic violence since the system of values inherentin a language becomes the ldquosystem upon which social economic and politicaldiscourses are groundedrdquo (Ashcroft Grif ths and Tif n 1995283) To ask whosevalues are heard and whose are silenced by the use of speci c languages thereforeseems essential to a more politicized form of interculturalism In addition wemight ask how linguistic translationsare conducted and whose interests they serveDoes the translator function as a negotiator or a type of ldquonative informantrdquo Whathappens to linguistic concepts that resist translation or adaptation In terms oftheatrical product language issues are equally complicated How do staged lan-guages animate one another Which carries the cultural authority What happensto the performative features of verbal enunciation particularly when stories frompredominantly oral cultures are presented How might we reread verbally silencedbodies in different ways

Cross-Cultural Theatre Praxis 47

Since intercultural theatre stages a meeting of cultures in both physical andimaginative realmsmdashthe actual place(s) where a project takes place as well as the ctional spaces represented by the mise-en-scenemdashits spatial semantics also de-mand analysis Space is neither neutral nor homogenous it inevitably colors thoserelationships within its limits especially on the stage where con gurations ofspace take on symbolic meaning We need to ask then how the physical spacemeeting place in ects intercultural collaborationWhose ground are we on Whatare the power relations inscribed in the architectural aspects of that place Howcan theatre provide a space for negotiatingor subverting the relationships its spatialcon gurations foster We also need to examine the ideological assumptions thatinhere in the imaginative space(s) created by the scenography What does the setfor instance convey about the cultures involved in the collaboration Whichactors and characters have access topriority over what spaces Where are theborders between cultures and how are they maintained traversed or brokendown What kind of cultural landscape is suggested by the stagescape

Postcolonial theorizing of geography cartography and spatial history showshow space is constructed in the nexus of power and culture rather than simplyexisting as an ontological category This kind of politicized approach brings intofocus the disjunctive gap between visible space and its ctional referent (what weinfer or imagine from our culturally in ected reading of proxemics) It is thenpossible to explore the rhizomatic potential of interculturalismmdashits ability to makemultiple connections and disconnections between cultural spacesmdashand to createrepresentations that are unbounded and open and potentially resistant to im-perialist forms of closure

The body in intercultural theatre is equally subject to multiple inscriptionsproducing an unstable signi er rather than a totalized identity It is a site of con-vergence for contesting discourses even though it may be marked with the dis-tinctive signs of a particular culture Postcolonial theory aims to foreground theways in which power is inscribed on and negotiated through the body Suchtheory continually questions what is spoken through the body how its languagesoperate and in the service of whose vested interests It maintains that the bodyis not only a site of knowledgepower but also a site of resistance which inElizabeth Groszrsquos words ldquoexerts a recalcitrance and always entails the possibilityof counterstrategic re-inscription [because] it is capable of being self-marked self-represented in alternative waysrdquo (199064) We need then to look at how resis-tance is expressed in relation to performative bodies how those bodies encodedifference and speci city and how they can prevent the universalizing impulseof transculturalism

As categories that are constructed through visible differences race and genderhave particular signi cance in this respect it is important to note however thatthese are complex and even unstable categories being historically conditionedrather than determined solely by biology One of the problems intercultural the-atre often faces is how to avoid essentialist constructions of race and gender whilestill accounting for the irreducible speci city of certain bodies and body behav-iors A common response is to elevate particular roles in source texts to the level ofarchetypes that can then be played by any skilled performer Peter Brookrsquos Ma-habharata has been accused of this approach (Dasgupta 1991 Bharucha 199368ndash87) This process of distillation strips the readable signs of culture from the sourcetext rather than provoke the audience to examine the tensions between partici-pating cultures There is no dialogic interaction instead a speci c body is sub-merged in the archetypal role according to the aesthetic principles of the projectPostcolonial theory warns against the dehistoricizing effects of such distillationprocesses It focuses on analyzing the gap between the material body and what itis supposed to represent This involves examining movement as well as bodily ap-

48 LoGilbert

pearance since as Pavis notes ldquoactors simultaneously reveal the culture of thecommunity where they have trained and where they live and the bodily tech-nique they have acquiredrdquo (19963) Rather than working from principles of ab-straction an intercultural practice informed by postcolonialism would play upcultural differences without attempting to deny the effects of the political econ-omy that underpins the project The hybrid counter-energies that result from theclash between the symbolic space and the culturally inscribed body can then pro-duce ldquoa radical heterogeneity discontinuity [and] the perpetual revolutionof formrdquo(Young 199525)

A politicized reading of costume is similarly necessary to the formulation of amore comprehensive theory about intercultural performance It seems that partof the attraction of interculturalism has to do with the fantasy of stepping intoldquonativerdquo costume in a process of cultural transvestism that does anything butsubvert power hierarchies As Gail Ching-Liang Low argues the fantasy of cross-cultural dressing identi es clothes as a ldquolsquobadge and advertisementrsquo of [the domi-nant culturersquos] ability to cross the class and cultural gaprdquo hence cultural transvestismoffers ldquothe promise of lsquotransgressiversquo pleasure without the penalties of actualchangerdquo (198992ndash93) If such transvestism could be used to draw attention tothe dif culties that inhere in crossing cultural gaps costume would then becomeanother possible site of resistant inscription rather than a conduit for the one-waycultural transfer that currently characterizes certain forms of interculturalismThisis where postcolonial theories about mimicry masquerade and self-consciousconstructions of subjectivity can come into play because they treat costume as amalleable and even ambiguous signi er rather than a transparent sign of particulargender racial social and national identities

Degrees of power and privilege are also embedded in the framing mechanismsthrough which particular elements of a performance are presented to its audi-ence(s) Typically intercultural theatre positions the performance traditions andoractual bodies of ldquootherrdquo cultures as focal points of the Western viewerrsquos specularconsumption and it is through this kind of untroubled and desiring gaze thatrei ed images of cultural difference are validated and circulated on the ldquointer-nationalrdquo arts market If intercultural theatre means to address the potential in-equities involved in Western appropriations of other cultural traditions then itsadherents must conceive of a theatre that somehow engages with its own estab-lished ldquolookingrdquo relations Interventionary frameworks and other metatheatricaldevicesmdashthese might range from direct audience address to self-conscious roleplaying to forum discussionmdashcan be used to problematize the implicitly im-perialist object-relations model of cross-cultural spectatorship Within the self-re exive theatre that we envision the hybridizing of cultural fragments wouldbe far from seamless cultural tensions would not be hidden nor difference nat-uralized

Conclusion

We have attempted to map the eld of cross-cultural theatre as a way of think-ing through its complexities and contradictions Despite our efforts to integratea diverse range of theories and practices into a ldquobig-picturerdquo account of the eldwe are not advocating a totalizing theory of cultural exchange Rather our dis-cussion is designed to enable a strategic way of rethinking the local and context-speci c through the global and vice versa This sort of matrixed model we wouldargue proffers a more nuanced method of actualizing and analyzing the range ofwork that is increasingly becoming a globalized praxis

Our all too brief survey of potential sites of intervention in the practice andinterpretation of intercultural theatre outlines some of the ways in which the

Cross-Cultural Theatre Praxis 49

mise-en-scene can be politicized and the notion of cultural hegemony relativizedIn an age where cultural boundaries are continually traversed and identities arebecoming increasingly hybridized an intercultural theatre practice informed bypostcolonial theory can potentially function as a site where this intersecting ofcultures is both re ected and critiqued Such a practice would align with (thoughnot necessarily replicate) Gomez-Penarsquos formulation of ldquoborder artrdquo in whichthe performerrsquos job is ldquoto trespass bridge interconnect reinterpret remap andrede nerdquo the limits of culture (199612) It is vital that intercultural theatrersquospotential to cross cultures is not co-opted and neutralized by the ldquoweakerrdquo formsof postmodernism which tend to result in an abstract depoliticized and ahis-torical notion of ldquodifferencerdquo or in effect a masked ldquoindifferencerdquo In this re-spect Homi Bhabharsquos clari cation of postcolonial hybridity as based on anagonistic relationship rather than a seamless fusion offers a workable model foran ethics as well as an aesthetics of cross-cultural engagement

Hybrid hyphenations emphasise the incommensurable elements [] as thebasis of cultural identi cations What is at issue is the performative natureof differential identities the regulation and negotiation of those spaces thatare continually contingently ldquoopening outrdquo remaking the boundariesexposing the limits of any claim to a singular or autonomous sign of dif-ferencemdashbe it class gender or race Such assignations of social differ-encesmdashwhere difference is neither One nor the Other but something elsebesides in-betweenmdash nd their agency in [] an interstitial future thatemerges in between the claims of the past and the needs of the present(1994219)

The kind of hyphenated hybridity that Bhabha outlines is already within theconceptual reach of interculturalism It is now time for a more sustained andsystematic engagement with the politics of its production

Notes

1 ldquoAgencyrdquo refers here to the potential to act or perform an action autonomously it registersdegrees of power and knowledge combined since to act autonomously is to understand theideological systems in which one is imbricated

2 For an extended discussion of multiculturalism in Canada Australia and the United Statessee Gunew (199351ndash65)

3 See Bennett (1996144ndash47) for examples of small ldquomrdquo multicultural theatre in which blind-cast productions of Shakespearersquos The Tempest unwittingly reproduced dominant culturalvalues

4 Guillermo Gomez-Pena critiques a similar model of intercultural encounter in his conceptof ldquocorporaterdquo or ldquotransnationalrdquo multiculturalism which he argues characterizes manybusiness and media conglomeratesrsquo current interest in difference Such difference performsthe ldquopassive roles of glossy images and exotic backgroundrdquo and real diversity is ldquo attenedand equalized by high production valuesrdquo (200112)

5 Examples of big ldquoMrdquo multicultural theatre include various projects done by El Teatro Cam-pesino (US) Talawa (Britain) Doppio Teatro and Urban Theatre Projects (Australia) andCahoots Theatre Projects (Canada) Of course there have been numerous projects (espe-cially in non-Western countries) that t within our de nition of multicultural theatre al-though the speci c practitioners involved may not identify their work in this way Examplesinclude projects by Five Arts Centre (Malaysia) William Kentridge and the HandspringPuppet Company (South Africa) Rustom Bharucha (India) and Gomez-Pena (USAMexico)

6 Our identi cation of ghetto and migrant theatres is in uenced by Richard Fotheringhamrsquoswork ([1987] 1992197ndash98)

7 For further explication of community theatre see Baz Kershaw (1992)

50 LoGilbert

8 For some time postcolonial theatre has been well theorized as a conceptual category albeita contested one however in-depth engagement with postcolonialism has been conspicu-ously absent from discussions of cross-cultural performance work in journals such as TDRSimilarly Patrice Pavisrsquos introduction to The Intercultural Performance Reader (1996) virtuallydismisses the eld of postcolonial theatre even though some of the bookrsquos contents clearly t within this grouping

9 Wole Soyinka Derek Walcott and Girish Karnad are the most prominent of a very largeand diverse group of dramatists who might be catagorized as ldquopostcolonialrdquo Well-knownindigenous theatre groups in countries permanently colonized by European powers includeKooemba Jdarra (Australia) Taki Rua Productions (New Zealand) Spiderwoman (USA) andNative Earth Performing Arts (Canada) See Gilbert and Tompkins (1996) for an extendedaccount of the eld

10 See the introduction to Christopher Balmersquos book Decolonizing the Stage Theatrical Syncre-tism and Post-Colonial Drama (1999) for an extended history of the conceptual category ofsyncretic theatre Balme has been the key theorist of this form of cross-cultural performancefor several years though he initially assessed its overarching function as cultural rapproche-ment rather than decolonization andor resistance

11 His notable theatre projects include Tooth of Crime (1973) Mother Courage (1975) The Pro-metheus Project (1983ndash85) and Three Sisters (1995ndash97)

12 The Tales from South Asia project as documented by Sharon Grady and Phillip Zarilli (1994)exhibits most of the features of the collaborative model The stated aims of the projectrsquosinitiators were to

develop a strategy of presentation and representation which engages an audienceandor students in ldquodifferencerdquo without stereotyping essentializing romanticizingthe ldquoother and keeping onersquos audience aware of contestation as a social realityrdquo(Grady and Zarilli 1994169)

13 Similar celebratory responses can be found in Williams (1992) and Wilshire and Wilshire(1989)

14 This position has been described elsewhere as ldquohappy hybridityrdquo (see Lo 2000)15 Schechnerrsquos 1989 article ldquoIntercultural Themesrdquo maps his thinking on the subject up to

the end of the 1980s see his 1996 interview with Pavis for a more recent account16 On a similar note Craig Latrell recently argued for a more complex reading of intercultural

exchange beyond the ldquovictim-victimizer narrativerdquo The non-Western cultures should notbe perceived as passive receivers of Western ideas but rather active manipulators of suchin uences (200045ndash46) His analysis of the speci city of theatrical agency is howeverweakened by the lack of attention to historical speci city and particularly the impact ofcolonialism in Singapore and Indonesia

17 For detailed explanation see Pavis (19924ndash20)18 Pavis adheres to the idea of turning the hourglass over for other perspectives but unlike

his earlier theorization which advocated the reversal as a way for the source culture tomonitor its own process of exchange the latest discussion appears to consolidate the primacyof the dominant culture

At the end of the process when spectators feel themselves buried alive under thesand of signs and symbols they have no other salvation than to give up and turn thehourglass upside down Then the perspective inverts and one must reverse andrelativize the sediments accumulated in the receiving culture and judge them fromthe point of view of alterity and relativity (199618)

19 For a fuller account of various modes of hybridity see Lo (2000152ndash55)20 See Gilbert (199813ndash25) for a more detailed discussion of the ways in which postcolonial

theory can be used to interpret ideological aspects of performance

References

Ambush Benny Sato1989 ldquoPluralism to the Bonerdquo American Theatre 615

Cross-Cultural Theatre Praxis 51

Ang Ien and John Stratton1994 ldquoMulticultural Imagined Communities Cultural Difference and National Iden-

tity in Australia and the USArdquo Continuum The Australian Journal of Media andCulture 8 2124ndash58

Ashcroft Bill Gareth Grif ths and Helen Tif n eds1995 The Post-Colonial Studies Reader London Routledge

Balme Christopher1999 Decolonizing the Stage Theatrical Syncretism and Post-Colonial Drama Oxford Ox-

ford University Press

Barba Eugenio1996 ldquoEurasian Theatrerdquo In The Intercultural Performance Reader edited by Patrice Pav-

ice 217ndash22 London Routledge

Bennett Susan1996 Performing Nostalgia Shifting Shakespeare and the ContemporaryPast LondonRout-

ledge

Bhabha Homi1994 The Location of Culture London Routledge

Bharucha Rustom1993 Theatre and the World Performance and the Politics of Culture London Routledge2000 The Politics of Cultural Practice Thinking through Theatre in an Age of Globalisation

London Athlone Press

Brandon James1990 ldquoContemporary Japanese Theatre Interculturalism and Intraculturalismrdquo In The

Dramatic Touch of Difference Theatre Own and Foreign edited by Erika Fischer-Lichte Michael Gissenwehrer and Josephine Riley 89ndash97 Tubingen Narr

Brown John Russell1998 ldquoTheatrical Pillage in Asia Redirecting the Intercultural Traf crdquo New Theatre

Quarterly 14 539ndash19

Carlson Marvin1990 ldquoPeter Brookrsquos The Mahabharata and Ariane Mnouchkinersquos LrsquoIndiade as Ex-

amples of Contemporary Cross-cultural Theatrerdquo In The Dramatic Touch of Dif-ference Theatre Own and Foreign edited by Erika Fischer-Lichte Michael Gissen-wehrer and Josephine Riley 49ndash56 Tubingen Narr

Carter David1986 ldquoThe Natives Are Getting Restless Nationalism Multiculturalism and Migrant

Writingrdquo Island Magazine 25263ndash8

Chin Daryl1991 ldquoInterculturalism Postmodernism Pluralismrdquo In Interculturalism and Performance

Writings from PAJ edited by Bonnie Marranca and Gautam Dasgupta 83ndash95New York PAJ Publications

Clifford James1994 ldquoDiasporasrdquo Cultural Anthropology 9 3 302ndash38

Dasgupta Gautam1991 ldquoThe Mahabharata Peter Brookrsquos Orientalismrdquo In Interculturalism and Perfor-

mance Writings from PAJ edited by Bonnie Marranca and Gautam Dasgupta 75ndash82 New York PAJ Publications

De Reuck Jenny2000 ldquolsquoThe mirror shattered into tiny piecesrsquo Reading Gender and Culture in the

Japan Foundation Asia Centrersquos LEARrdquo Intersections Online Asian Studies Journal3 6 httpwwwsshemurdocheduauintersectionsissue3jenny3html (12January 2001)

Cross-Cultural Theatre Praxis 33

Multicultural Theatre

ldquoMulticulturalrdquo and ldquomulticulturalismrdquo carry site-speci c meanings Countriessuch as Australia and Canada where multiculturalism is an of cial federal policyhave very different experiences and strategies of managing cultural diversity incomparison to the Unites States and Britain where multiculturalism remainslargely a community-generated consciousness that has come to in uence statemanagement2 Ien Ang and Jon Stratton have summarized the key structuraldifference between Australian and US formations of multiculturalism

In the US the politicisation of multiculturalism has been largely from thebottom up its stances advanced by minority groups (African AmericansHispanic Americans Native Americans Asian Americans and so on) whoregard themselves as excluded from the American mainstream (and forwhom the multiculturalist idea acts as an af rmation of that exclusion)while in Australia multiculturalism is a centre piece of of cial govern-mental policy that is a top-bottom political strategy implemented bythose in power precisely to improve the inclusion of ethnic minoritieswithin national Australian culture (1994126)

Canadian multiculturalism shares many similarities with its Australian counter-part with the signi cant exception that indigenous cultures feature prominentlyin the Canadian model whereas Australian multiculturalism is still dominated bythe discourse of immigration which has the effect of positioning indigenousconcerns outside the multicultural paradigm In Britain by contrast multicul-turalism functions more as a descriptive term for the interaction among majorethnic groupings in ways that resemble the US situationThese differences partlyaccount for the different degrees to which the various countries invest in mul-ticulturalism as an element of their national identity The imperatives of multi-cultural policy have in uenced not only the material practice of cross-culturaltheatre but also its critical reception In Australia and Canada multicultural the-atre has come to signify a speci c cluster of artistic practices often supportedunder the state-sanctioned rubric of community development which has gen-erated a de ned body of critical literature By contrast in the US the mostprominent ethnic theatres (Asian American African American and Hispanic)have not been integrated to the same extent under an overarching framework ofthe ldquomulticulturalrdquo

Broadly speaking there are two major types of multicultural theatre small ldquomrdquomulticultural theatre and big ldquoMrdquo multicultural theatre

Small ldquomrdquo multicultural theatre refers to theatre works featuring a racially mixedcast that do not actively draw attention to cultural differences among performersor to the tensions between the text and the production content One of the mostcommon strategies of small ldquomrdquo multicultural theatre is to use nontraditional orldquoblind castingrdquomdashusually in productions of canonical plays staged for a mainstreamaudiencemdashto signal a commitment to cultural pluralism While such castingopens up employment opportunities for minority-group actors it is a politicallyconservative practice that gives the appearance of diversity without necessarilyconfronting the hegemony of the dominant culture

In this respect Benny Ambush argues that color-blind casting does not allowactors to bring what is special about them to their roles but rather ldquowhitewashesaesthetically different peoplerdquo inviting spectators to think that racial andor cul-tural speci cities do not ldquomatterrdquo (19895) Used uncritically multiculturalcastingstrategies have the effect of sustaining a familiar view of the world by subsuming

34 LoGilbert

the defamiliarizing potential created by the lack of ldquo trdquo between actor and roleinto the normative conventions of Western theatrical realism3

Another common theatrical form included in the small ldquomrdquo multiculturalcate-gory is folkloric display a performance practice that showcases speci c culturalart forms in discrete categories often within a festival model Based primarily onthe fetishization of cultural difference folkloric theatre trades in notionsof historytradition and authenticity in order to gain recognition for the cultural capital ofdisenfranchised groups But as Gareth Grif ths warns authenticity has its owntraps it ldquomay overwrite and overdetermine the full range of representationsrdquothrough which community identities are articulated (199472) and ldquodisavow pos-sibilities of hybridized subjectsrdquo (199476) Folkloricization allows for a selectivepast but not a present or a future According to David Carter instead of a modeof interaction it presents ldquoa model of performanceobservation [of] objectsub-jectrdquo (19865)4

Big ldquoMrdquo multicultural theatre is generally a counterdiscursive practice that aimsto promote cultural diversity access to cultural expression and participation inthe symbolic space of the national narrative Its processes and products are in-formed by an expressed agenda that speaks to a politics of marginality5 Canadaand Australia have well-established track records in this form of theatre largelybecause of cial multiculturalism has played an increasingly signi cant role innation-building since the 1970s This is not to say that all big ldquoMrdquo multiculturaltheatre practice is cross-cultural as the following discussion of ghetto theatredemonstrates

Several types of theatre practice fall under the broad category of big ldquoMrdquomulticultural theatre ghetto theatre migrant theatre and community theatre6

Ghetto theatre tends to be monocultural it is staged for and by a speci c ethniccommunity and is usually communicated in the languages of that communityThe political ef cacy of this type of multicultural intervention is arguably limitedsince the performances are largely ldquoin-houserdquo and tend to focus on narrativesabout origins and loss Much ghetto theatre is infused with a nostalgic privilegingof the homeland (real or imagined) as seen from a diasporic perspective with theresult that more radical cross-cultural negotiations are muted

Migrant theatre is centrally concerned with narratives of migration and adap-tation often using a combination of ethno-speci c languages to denote culturalin-between-ness Cross-cultural negotiation is more visible in migrant theatrewhere there is an emerging exploration of cultural hybridity re ected in aestheticform as well as narrative content While one cultural group is usually responsiblefor the production and staging of migrant theatre it frequently plays not only tothat group but also to wider audiences albeit to a lesser extent hence cross-cultural negotiations may also occur at the level of reception

Community theatre is characterized by social engagement it is theatre primarilycommitted to bringing about actual change in speci c communities This focuson cultural activism is seen as an oppositional practice concerned with subvertingthose ldquodominant cultural practices which render people passive [as] consumersrdquoof imposed cultural commodities (Watt 199163) A commitment to cultural de-mocracy distinguishes community theatre from other types of community-generated performances that go under the general rubric of ldquoamateurrdquo theatreThe aesthetics of community theatre are shaped by the culture of its audience7

The constitution of the performance group and the subject matter may be or-ganized around common interests (such as gender ethnicity or shared socialexperiences) or de ned in terms of geographical location Multicultural com-munity theatre generally incorporates a range of languages and cultural resourcesincluding performing traditions drawn from the community Community arts

Cross-Cultural Theatre Praxis 35

workers are often employed to facilitate the work and the performances are typ-ically presented back to the community as well as to ldquooutsidersrdquo Cross-culturalnegotiations therefore occur at a number of levels in this type of theatre

Postcolonial Theatre

While ldquopostcolonial theatrerdquo has sometimes been used as a portmanteau de-scriptor for performance work expressing any kind of resistance politics particu-larly concerning race class andor gender oppression the term more often refersto a range of theatre texts and practices that have emerged from cultures subjectedto Western imperialism8 In its more narrowly focused de nition postcolonialtheatre is a geopolitical category designating both a historical and a discursiverelation to imperialism whether that phenomenon is treated critically or ambi-valently (see Gilbert and Tompkins 19962ndash7) The discursive axis of postcolonialtheatremdashthat it engages with imperialism in either explicit or implicit waysmdashmoves away from concepts of a naotildeve teleological sequence in which postcolo-nialism merely supersedes colonialism Hence speci c theatre practices aredeemed postcolonial not simply because of their cultural origins but also becauseof their textual and performative features While the best known postcolonialtheatre derives from indigenous groups in areas formerly colonized by Europeanandor American cultures some settler theatre in such regions is included (ifsometimes contentiously) in this category9

Most postcolonial theatre is driven by a political imperative to interrogate thecultural hegemony that underlies imperial systems of governance education so-cial and economic organization and representation Its discourses of resistancespeak primarily to the colonizing projects of Western imperial centers andor tothe neocolonial pressures of localregional postindependence regimes Resistanceis expressed in genres ranging from realism agitprop and forum theatre to po-litical satires and allegories where criticism of various ldquosensitiverdquo issues may beldquomutedrdquo to avoid the censorship of a politically repressive government or rulingclass In this context resistance is not conceptualized as pure or simply thereavailable in texts or social practices rather it is grounded in multiple and some-times contradictory structures never easily located because it is partial incom-plete ambiguous and often complicit in the apparatus it seeks to transgress Thenotion of resistance as unstable and potentially ambivalent strengthens the casefor the inclusion of some settler theatre in the postcolonial category since asStephen Slemon maintains postcolonialism is concerned with ldquothe project ofarticulating the formsmdashand modes and tropes and guresmdashof anti-colonial tex-tual resistance wherever they occur and in all their guisesrdquo (199035)

Postcolonial theatre usually involves cross-cultural negotiation at the drama-turgical and aesthetic levels because of the historical contact between culturesCross-cultural processes may also be an important part of the working practicesespecially in regions with bicultural or multicultural populations While not allpostcolonial theatre is necessarily cross-cultural it frequently assumes some kindof interpretive encounter between differently empowered cultural groups Interms of reception audiences for postcolonial theatre are complex typically vary-ing across geographical regions while being differentially in uenced by class andrace For instance Aboriginal theatre in Australia plays primarily to the dominantldquowhiterdquo culture while Wole Soyinkarsquos work nds its main audience among theeducated classes of Nigerian society as well as among cosmopolitan groups in-ternationally

Postcolonial theatre has been discussed under two main categories syncretictheatre and nonsyncretic theatre Syncretic theatre integrates performance elements

36 LoGilbert

of different cultures into a form that aims to retain the cultural integrity of thespeci c materials used while forging new texts and theatre practices10 This in-tegrative process tends to highlight rather than disguise shifts in the meaningfunction and value of cultural fragments as they are moved from their traditionalcontexts In postcolonial societies syncretic theatre generally involves the incor-poration of indigenous material into a Western dramaturgical framework whichis itself modi ed by the fusion process Christopher Balme argues that such syn-cretism activates a ldquocultural and aesthetic semiotic recoding that ultimately ques-tions the basis of normative Western dramardquo this creative endeavor is to bedistinguished from ldquotheatrical exoticismrdquo in which ldquoindigenous cultural texts arearbitrarily recoded and semanticised in a Western aesthetic and ideological framerdquowhere they tend to signify mere alterity (19994ndash5) Well-known examples ofsyncretic postcolonial theatre include works by Sistren Theatre Collective andDerek Walcott in the Caribbean Girish Karnad in India and Wole Soyinka andFemi Oso san in Nigeria A signi cant number of Aboriginal Maori and nativeNorth American plays also use syncretic performance strategies as part of theirlarger agenda of cultural recuperation

Nonsyncretic theatre by de nition does not merge disparate cultural forms butrather uses imposed imperial genresaesthetics or less often wholly indigenousones to voice postcolonial concerns For instance Western-style realism has beenwidely used to stage anticolonial narratives emanating from both indigenous andsettler communities Among the latter Australiarsquos Louis Nowra and CanadarsquosSharon Pollock gure as high-pro le playwrights whose work could be charac-terized as postcolonial but not syncretic The distinction between syncretic andnonsyncretic theatre is more dif cult to maintain in cases such as indigenousperformances of Shakespearian texts where European characters are enacted byldquoblackrdquo or ldquocoloredrdquo actors instituting tension between the performance at issueand the tradition that it transgresses It could be argued here that syncretisminheres in the juxtaposition of the performersrsquo bodies (as culturally coded sign-systems) to scripts ineluctably embedded with markers of a different culture Thisexample suggests that postcolonial theatre is best conceptualized as exhibitingvarying degrees of syncretism rather than falling neatly into opposing categories

Intercultural Theatre

Whereas multicultural theatre is often the effect of state-determined culturalmanagement andor a grassroots response to the ldquolived realityrdquo of cultural plu-ralism and postcolonial theatre is produced as part of (and in opposition to) ahistorical process of imperialism and neoimperialism intercultural theatre is char-acterized as a ldquovoluntarist intervention circumscribed by the agencies of the stateand the marketrdquo (Bharucha 200033) Multicultural theatre functions within astatist framework premised on ideals of citizenship and the management of cul-turalethnic difference while intercultural theatre and to a certain extent post-colonial theatre have more latitude to explore and critique alternative formsof citizenship and identity across and beyond national boundaries although thesubjectivities they produce are not wholly free of state mediation Put simplyintercultural theatre is a hybrid derived from an intentional encounter betweencultures and performing traditions It is primarily a Western-based tradition witha lineage in modernist experimentation through the work of Tairov MeyerholdBrecht Artaud and Grotowski More recently intercultural theatre has beenassociated with the works of Richard Schechner Peter Brook Eugenio BarbaAriane Mnouchkine Robert Wilson Tadashi Suzuki and Ong Keng Sen Evenwhen intercultural exchanges take place within the ldquonon-Westrdquo they are often

Cross-Cultural Theatre Praxis 37

mediated through Western culture andor economics Ongrsquos ldquoPan-Asianrdquo spec-taculars LEAR (1997) and Desdemona (1999) are cases in point (see De Reuck2000 and Grehan 2000)

One only has to refer to Pavisrsquos The Intercultural Performance Reader (1996) toappreciate the range of approaches encompassed by the term ldquointerculturalismrdquoand the extent to which it evades any neat de nition While attempting to mapdevelopments in the eld The Reader documents diverse positions that fore-ground interculturalism as a contested site for both theory and practice Despitethis apparent diversity there is evidence pointing to interculturalism as a Westernvision of exchange Pavis himself acknowledges this bias explaining that the col-lection was ldquolargely produced by and aimed at a European and Anglo-Americanreadershiprdquo (199625) The privileging of the West is evident in the ways in whichthe essays are grouped within the book for instance the juxtapositioning of PartII titled ldquoIntercultural Performance from the Western Point of Viewrdquo with PartIII ldquoIntercultural Performance from Another Point of Viewrdquo replicates the ldquoWestand the restrdquo binary paradigm and reveals a problematic ideological aporia Putdifferently interculturalism as it has been theorized and documented thus far isalready overdetermined by the West

Although Pavis echoing Erika Fischer-Lichte claims that it is too soon topropose a global theory of interculturalism (19961) there already exists a glob-alizing practice that demands further political and ethical interrogationSimilarlyJulie Holledge and Joanne Tompkins (2000) contend that intercultural theatre istoo varied and process-based to warrant a general theory They opt instead for asite-speci c study of intercultural projects But this reluctance to engage with theldquobig picturerdquo arguably runs the risk of consolidating the ideological premises ofinterculturalism as a Western-dominated form of knowledge production By priv-ileging content speci city the false dichotomy between praxis and theory is main-tained this also has the effect of relegating issues of ethics to the particular andthe ldquoone off rdquo rather than relating these to larger issues of knowledge formationwithin institutional national and global contexts

Our study of a range of intercultural practice and the theoretical discussion ithas generated suggests that the eld can be loosely divided into three subcate-gories

Transcultural theatre aims to transcend culture-speci c codi cation in order toreach a more universal human condition Transcultural directors are interested inparticularities and traditions only insofar as they enable the directors to identifyaspects of commonality rather than difference (Pavis 19966) There are manyvariations to this search for the universal In the case of Peter Brook transcen-dence of the particular is a necessary part of the mythic quest for origins andWestern theatrersquos supposed loss of ldquopurityrdquo This return to sources and the reap-propriation of primitive languages is a metaphysical quest for a truth that holdseverywhere and at any time irrespective of historical or cultural differences InOrghast (1970) for instance Brook attempted to create an original tonal languageby tapping into a primeval consciousness Eugenio Barbarsquos work in ISTA (Inter-national School of Theatre Anthropology) is another form of transculturaltheatrePavis distinguishes Barbarsquos work as ldquopreculturalrdquo it does not aim to identify thecommon origins of cultures in Brookrsquos way but rather seeks what is common toldquoEasternrdquo and ldquoWesternrdquo theatre practitioners before they become individualizedor ldquoacculturatedrdquo in particular traditions and techniques of performance (19967)According to Barba the goal is to compare the work methods of both Easternand Western theatre and ldquoto reach down into a common technical substratumrdquowhich is ldquothe domain of pre-expressivity [] At this pre-expressive level theprinciples are the same even though they nurture the enormous expressive dif-

38 LoGilbert

ferences which exist between one tradition and another one actor and anotherrdquo(1996220) Barba stresses that these principles are analogous to one another ratherthan homologous nevertheless his search for an essence beyond socialization ischaracteristic of the desire to transcend social and cultural ldquotrappingsrdquo in a movetoward a ldquopurerrdquo mode of communication and theatrical presence

Intracultural theatre is Rustom Bharucharsquos term to denote cultural encountersbetween and across speci c communities and regions within the nation-stateMore speci cally in relation to his own ldquointraculturalrdquo work Bharucha pointsto internal diversity within the boundaries of a particular region or nation Thissense of the intracultural has similarities to the multicultural

insofar as they assume either the interaction or the coexistence of regionaland local cultures within the larger framework of the nation-state How-ever while the ldquointrardquo prioritizes the interactivity and translation of di-verse cultures the ldquomultirdquo upholds a notion of cohesiveness (Bharucha20009)

In this way intracultural theatre serves a critical function in challenging ldquoorgan-icist notions of culture by highlighting the deeply fragmented and divided society[] that multicultural rhetoric of the state refuses to acknowledgerdquo (Bharucha20009)

Extracultural theatre refers to theatre exchanges that are conducted along a West-East and North-South axis The converse of intraculturalism this form of inter-culturalism goes back to the modernist pioneers who looked to the non-West torejuvenate Western art Schechner is the best-known contemporary exponent ofthis practice his experimental productions dating back to the late 1960s with thestaging of a West Irian birth ritual in Dionysus in 69 (1968) and subsequentlydeveloping through numerous theatre projects and theoretical essays in the eld11

While extracultural theatre can encompass some forms of transcultural theatre asin Brookrsquos Mahabharata (1985) it also includes intercultural experiments whichdo not aim to relativize or transcend cultural differences but rather to celebrateand even interrogate such differences as a source of cultural empowerment andaesthetic richness As a category of analysis extracultural theatre always begsquestions about the power dynamics inherent in the economic and political lo-cation of the participating cultures even if such questions are evaded in accountsof actual practice

The remainder of this essay will focus primarily on this extracultural form ofintercultural theatre

Modes of Conducting Intercultural Theatre

The range of working methods employed in intercultural theatre can generallybe positioned along a continuum One pole of the continuum is characterizedby a collaborative mode of exchange while the opposite pole is characterized asimperialistic Most intercultural theatre occurs somewhere between these twoextremes and speci c projects may shift along the continuum depending on thephase of cultural production It is vital that the continuum is conceived in pro-cessual rather than xed terms in order to foreground intercultural exchange asa dynamic process rather than a static transaction

Diagram 2 Continuum ofIntercultural Modes

Cross-Cultural Theatre Praxis 39

Collaborative

Intercultural exchange at this end of the continuum tends to emphasize theprocesses and politics of exchange rather than the theatrical product per se Thisform of theatre-making places great importance on cultural negotiations at alllevels from the highly personal and individualistic to the ldquosuperstructuralrdquo andinstitutional Collaborative interculturalism is often community-generated ratherthan market andor state-driven There is less of a focus on maintaining theldquopurityrdquo of the various cultures for exotic display The exchange process is oftenmarked by tension and incommensurability While there is a general desire tomaintain equitable power relations between partners the aim is not to producea harmonious experience of theatre-making but rather to explore the fullness ofcultural exchange in all its contradictions and convergences for all parties Thetheatre product may similarly resist forced synthesis revealing instead both thepositive and negative aspects of the encounter12 Ferdinand Ortizrsquos concept oftransculturation (not to be confused with transculturalism) offers a useful way ofanalyzing collaborative interculturalism by going beyond a model of easy fusionto account for both acquisition and loss at the same time In the transculturationprocess elements of each system of culture are lost in the creation of a thirdsystem Cultural encounter of this kind can be potentially counterhegemonic itallows minor cultures to act on dominant ones rather than merely submit tocultural loss in the transaction (see Taylor 199162ndash63)

Imperialistic

Intercultural exchange at this end of the continuum is often driven by a senseof Western culture as bankrupt and in need of invigoration from the non-WestThe resulting theatre tends to tap into ldquoOtherrdquo cultural traditions that are per-ceived as ldquoauthenticrdquo and uncontaminated by (Western) modernity Interculturalpractice in this mode is largely an aesthetic response to cultural diversity Thereis a discernible difference in agency between partners such inequity is oftenhistorically based and may continue in the present through economic politicaland technological dominance This form of theatre tends to be product-orientedand usually produced for the dominant culturersquos consumption Performances areoften highly spectacular with emphasis placed on the aesthetic and formal qualitiesof the mise-en-scene The intercultural work of practitioners such as ArianeMnouchkine has been described as imperialist though Mnouchkine refutes thischarge preferring to see her appropriations of Asian performing traditions as aform of indebtedness and ldquohomagerdquo Maria Shevtsova defends this position byasserting that Mnouchkine does not purport to use the ldquooriginalrdquo art form andthat her ldquoborrowingrdquo practices should be understood within the logic of herWestern system of aestheticism (1997102)

Responses to Interculturalism

Given the range of intercultural modalities it is not surprising that criticaltheoretical responses are similarly varied Generally speaking most commentatorshave analyzed interculturalism as practice their responses ranging from the ce-lebratory to the highly critical Schechnerrsquos earlier writings about interculturalpractice exemplify many aspects of the celebratory stance13 Schechner refers tothe intercultural experimentations in the US from the 1950s to the mid rsquo70s asa ldquogolden age of innocencerdquo

People didnrsquot question too much whether or not this interculturalism []was a continuation of colonialism a further exploitation of other cultures

40 LoGilbert

There was something simply celebratory about discovering how diversethe world was how many performance genres there were and how wecould enrich our own experience by borrowing stealing exchanging(198219)

This neoliberal embrace of cultural difference celebrates the possibilities of cul-tural fusion and the construction of radical subjectivities beyond national andethnic boundaries Intercultural practice in this sense is deeply imbricated inglobalization and the perceived deterritorialization of social cultural and politicalboundaries for those in the developed world even if this is not often acknowl-edged by the critics and practitioners themselves14 It should be noted thatSchechnerrsquos position has shifted signi cantly since then15 over the last decade inparticular his critical work shows less of a tendency to idealize cross-culturalexchange and a keener awareness of power relations He also acknowledges the

misunderstandings broken languages and failed transactions that occurwhen and where cultures collide overlap or pull away from each otherThese are seen not as obstacles to be overcome but as fertile rifts or erup-tions full of creative potential (19913)

At the other end of the scale is the ethical critique of intercultural practice asinvasive globalization Daryl Chin argues that

Interculturalism hinges on the questions of autonomy and empowermentTo deploy elements from the symbol system of another culture is a verydelicate enterprise In its crudest terms the question is when does thatusage act as cultural imperialism Forcing elements from disparate culturestogether does not seem to be a solution that makes much sense aestheti-cally ethically or philosophically What does that prove that the knowl-edge of other cultures exists That information about other cultures nowis readily available (199194)

For Bharucha likewise interculturalism cannot be separated from a larger his-tory of colonialism and orientalism (see also Dasgupta 1991) He contends thatinterculturalism is an inherently ethnocentric practice which seeks to synthesizecultural difference rather than respect its individual histories

The problem arises [] when the preoccupation with the ldquoself rdquo over-powers the representation of ldquootherrdquo cultures [and] when the Other isnot another but the projection of onersquos ego Then all one has is a glori -cation of the self and a co-option of other cultures in the name of repre-sentation (199328)

John Russell Brown adds

Exchange borrowing trade or looting across major frontiers diminishesany theatre because it transgresses its inherited reliance on the societyfrom which the drama takes its life and for which it was intended to beperformed [] However worthily it is intended intercultural theatricalexchange is in fact a form of pillage and the result is fancy-dress pre-tence or at best the creation of a small zoo in which no creature has itsfull life (199814)

Cross-Cultural Theatre Praxis 41

Such moral critiques while absolutely essential to the politicizing of intercul-turalism risk instigating a kind of paralysis insofar as they suggest that virtuallyno form of theatrical exchange can be ethical16 This position is clearly untenablefor a number of practitioners especially those whose art is derived from (andaims to explore) experiences of cultural hybridity For instance performanceartisttheorist Guillermo Gomez-Pena a self-confessed ldquochild of crisis and cul-tural syncretismrdquo (199338) sees his own work (and the desirable future of Amer-ican theatre) as inevitably pluralistic unavoidably intercultural But he is alsoacutely aware of the implications of intercultural work noting that it is ldquofunda-mental to address relationships of power and assumptions about privilege amongthe participating artists communities and countriesrdquo in order to develop ethicalmodels of theatrical exchange (19969) To facilitate this Gomez-Pena calls for amuch more rigorous public debate about cultural issues in general about equityand diversity about de nitions of ldquomulti- inter- intra- and cross-culturalrdquoabout which encounters between cultures are ldquosymmetrical and desirable andwhich are more reactionaryrdquo (199357) In projects such as Temple of Confessions(1994) A Seminar on Museum Race Relations (1995) and Mexterminator Project(1999)mdashdeliberately provocative works that are at times even ldquounethicalrdquomdashGomez-Pena relentlessly stages aspects of this debate always avoiding de nitiveanswers

Theoretical Models of Interculturalism

While many critics have posed theoretical challenges to the intercultural en-terprise there have been surprisingly few attempts to formulate a comprehensivemodel of intercultural exchange Marvin Carlson has offered a scale consisting ofseven categories of cross-cultural in uence based on ldquopossible relationships be-tween the culturally familiar and the culturally foreignrdquo (199050) While usefulfor differentiating types of projects this scale does not move beyond an essentiallytaxonomic analysis of the eld Fischer-Lichte takes a different tack focusingspeci cally on the adaptation process which she insists follows a model of ldquopro-ductive receptionrdquo rather than one of translation (1997154ndash55) Productive re-ception emphasizes aspects of a performance caused or in uenced by receptionand is aligned in Fischer-Lichtersquos work with the project of revitalizing tired the-atrical practices though she does not elaborate on the precise dynamics involved

Pavis has thus far been the only critic able to sustain a comprehensive modelof intercultural exchange His hourglass model depicts in its upper bowl theforeign or source culture ldquowhich is more or less codi ed and solidi ed in diverseanthropological sociocultural or artistic modelizationsrdquo (19924) This is repre-sented by lters 1 and 2 in the diagram below The ldquograins of culturerdquo trickledown to the lower bowl and are rearranged in the process The lters 3 through11 put in place by the target culture and the observer largely determine the nalformation of the grains17 The model focuses on ldquothe intercultural transfer be-tween source and target culturerdquo as a way of depicting the relativity of the notionof culture and the complicated relationship between partners in the exchange(19925)

Critique of the Hourglass Model

In practice Pavisrsquos hourglass is an accurate model of most intercultural workof the extracultural kind But the modelrsquos strength is also its weakness it cannotaccount for alternative and more collaborative forms of intercultural exchangeDespite Pavisrsquos wariness of a translationcommunication model of intercultural-ism his elaboration of the process of cultural transfer reveals its dependence on

42 LoGilbert

translation theory The main problem with this model is that it assumes a one-way cultural ow based on a hierarchy of privilege even though Pavis attemptsto relativize the power relations by claiming that the hourglass can be turnedupside-down ldquoas soon as the users of a foreign culture ask themselves how theycan communicate their own culture to another target culturerdquo (19925) Thishowever assumes that there is a ldquolevel-playing eldrdquo between the partners in theexchange and does not account for the fact that the bene ts of globalization andthe permeability of cultures and political systems are accessed differentially fordifferent communities and nations

A translation model of interculturalism therefore runs the risk of reproducingstrategies of containment As Tejaswine Niranjana points out

By employing certain modes of representing the othermdashwhich it therebyalso brings into beingmdashtranslation reinforces hegemonic versions of thecolonized helping them acquire the status of what Edward Said calls rep-resentations or objects without history (19923)

Diagram 3 Pavisrsquos hour-glass Model of InterculturalTheatre

Cross-Cultural Theatre Praxis 43

Pavis is not unaware of this danger

If [the hourglass] is only a mill it will blend the source culture destroy itsevery speci city and drop into the lower bowl an inert and deformed sub-stance which will have lost its original modeling without being moldedinto that of the target culture If it is only a funnel it will indiscriminatelyabsorb the initial substance without reshaping it through the series of l-ters or leaving any trace of the original matter (19925)

Having said this however Pavis is unable to account for interculturalism as aprocess of political negotiation For example he argues that the mise-en-sceneas the central site of interculturalism functions as a ldquokind of reglage (lsquo ne-tuningrsquo)rdquo which mediates between different contexts cultural backgrounds andtraditions (19926) ldquoFine-tuningrdquo serves to smooth over differences in ways thatbecome intelligible for the target culture Similarly ldquoreception-adaptersrdquo ( lter8) ll the lacunae in the transfer of cultural content and dissipate the tensions ofincommensurability in order to create a ldquoreadablerdquo text for the target culture

The teleology of the hourglass model ultimately reduces interculturalexchangeto an alimentary process According to this logic the body belongs to the targetculture while the source culture becomes the food which must be digested andassimilated As Pavis notes only the grains that are ldquosuf ciently nerdquo will ldquo owthrough [the hourglass neck] without any troublerdquo (19924) His model cannotaccount for blockage collisions and retroaction as sites of either intervention orresistance In the nal analysis intercultural exchange according to the hourglassmodel is a reductive process which distills cultural difference into essences thatcan be readily absorbed by the target culture While Pavis does acknowledge thein uence of the social context ( lters 10B and 10C) the temporally bound meta-phor of the hourglass suggests that sociohistorical factors rather than in ectingthe entire intercultural process simply constitute the nal lter before the the-atrical product is consumed by the target culture In short the hourglass modelis premised on aesthetics rather than on politics

Pavis does not stray far from this model in his more recent theorization of the eld (1996) proffering instead a more careful schematization of different formsand modes of intercultural practice Although he does acknowledge the proble-matics of power inequities between partners in the exchange noting that ldquotherecan be no sense in which Asian perspectives are always reversible and symmetricalwith those of the Westmdashas a purely functionalist use of the hourglass turnedover and over ad in nitum might lead us naively to believerdquo (19962) there islittle sense that he has revised the translation principles underlying his model18

Pavis takes account of some of the recent ethical critiques of interculturalismandis particularly wary of it being absorbed into a postmodernist form of culturalrelativism Although he claims that ldquoexchange implies a theory and an ethics ofalterityrdquo (199611) he does not foreground the ethical dimension in any discern-ible way Signi cantly Pavis claims that the kind of intercultural practice thatholds the most potential for ldquoresistance against standardization against the Eu-ropeanization of super-productionsrdquo is the ldquointer-corporeal work in which anactor confronts hisher technique and professional identity with those of theothersrdquo (1996150) By locating the potential for agency at this microscopic levelof actor training Pavis reveals the limitations of the hourglass model as an effectivetemplate for a politicized theorization of the entire eld of interculturalism

Matrixing Interculturalism and Postcolonialism

One way of approaching the problems raised by Pavisrsquos model of interculturaltheatre is to consider its mechanisms through the lens of postcolonial theory

44 LoGilbert

Despite their shared concern with the phenomenon of cultural encounter the-ories of interculturalism and postcolonialism have thus far developed as more orless asymmetrical discourses the former having roots in theatre anthropology(viaVictor Turner) and semiotics the latter in literary and cultural studies as well asin psychoanalysis (via Frantz Fanon) and poststructuralism Of the two discoursespostcolonial theory has been the most consistently political taking as its primaryimperative the task of exposing and redressing unequal power relationships be-tween cultures whereas interculturalism has concerned itself more often with theaesthetics of cultural transfer What postcolonial theory offers to current debatesabout interculturalism is a framework for analyzing such thorny issues as agencyhybridity and authenticity issues that lie at the heart of intercultural praxis Withits insistent stress on historicity and speci city postcolonial theory offers ways ofrelocating the dynamics of intercultural theatre within identi able elds of so-ciopolitical and historical relations This contextualizing enables us to ask at anypoint in the production and reception processes of intercultural work questionsabout individual and collective power Whose economic andor political interestsare being served How is the working process represented to the target audienceand why Who is the target audience and how can differences be addressed withinthis constituency How does a speci c intercultural event impact on the widersociopolitical environment

The term ldquointerculturalrdquo suggests an exploration of the interstice betweencultures it draws our attention to the hyphenated third space separating andconnecting different peoples The act of crossing cultures (with reference to Dol-limorersquos notions of travesty hybridity and con ict) should ideally activate bothcentrifugal and centripetal forces in the process of mutual contamination andinteraction This is an aspect which Pavisrsquos unilinear model of interculturalismcannot take into account We would therefore like to propose an alternativemodel of intercultural exchange which for the purposes of this essay focuses onthe ldquobig picturerdquo and uses some of Pavisrsquos categories and terminologies Ourmodel is both a template for an intercultural practice that encourages more mu-tuality and an attempted representation of the mutuality that has already existedat some level even if it has been limited and nonre exive indeed suppressed inmuch theorizing of particular projects Our aim is to adapt what is essentially anappropriativeassimilationist model into a more collaborativenegotiated oneThe model we have in mind draws inspiration from a toy we used to play withas children in both Malaysia and Australia The toy consisted of a piece of elasticstrung through the middle of a plastic disc The elastic string is held at each endwith the disc supported in the center By rotating the hands in a circular motionthe disc is rotated outward Once the disc is rotating the elastic is alternatelytightened and released to continue the spinning of the disc The disc moves ineither direction along the string depending on whether the tension is generatedby the left or the right hand

In our model intercultural exchange is represented as a two-way ow Bothpartners are considered cultural sources while the target culture is positionedalong the continuum between them The location of the target culture is not xed its position remains uid and depending on where and how the exchangeprocess takes place shifts along the continuum For instance if the performancetakes place in the domain of source culture B then the position of the targetculture moves closer to source Brsquos end of the continuum This uidity not onlyforegrounds the dialogic nature of intercultural exchange but also takes into ac-count the possibility of power disparity in the partnership

Both source cultures bring to the theatrical project cultural apparatuses shapedby their respective sociocultural milieu ( lters 1 and 2) and both undergo a seriesof transformations and challenges in the process of exchange ( lters 3 through 9)

Cross-Cultural Theatre Praxis 45

SourceCulture B

1 cultural modeling2 artistic modeling3 work of adaptation4 preparatory work by

actors5 choice of theatrical

form6 artistic modeling of

target culture7 sociological amp

anthropologicalmodeling of targetculture

8 cultural modeling oftarget culture

9 given and anticipatedconsequences

SourceCulture A

cultural modeling

artistic modeling

work of adaptation

preparatory work byactors

choice of theatricalform

artistic modeling oftarget culture

sociological ampanthropologicalmodeling of targetculture

cultural modeling oftarget culture

given and anticipatedconsequences

SociopoliticalContext

InterculturalProcess for

TargetCulture

SociopoliticalContext

1234

5

6

7

8

9

in relation to each other and in anticipation of the target culture Even if thetarget culture is aligned with one of the source cultures both partners still undergoa similar process of ltration and hybridization however differently experiencedPositioned at the tension between source cultures intercultural exchange is char-acterized both by gain and by loss attraction and disavowal This dialogism isrepresented by the centrifugal and centripetal forces indicated in the diagramabove The proposed model locates all intercultural activity within an identi ablesociopolitical context This serves not only to foreground the inseparability ofartistic endeavors from sociopolitical relations but also to remind us that theoryand reading strategies are themselves deeply imbricated in speci c histories andpolitics

Our model of intercultural theatre rests on a notion of differentiated hybriditythat works in multiple and sometimes opposing ways19 Postcolonial theory haslong recognized that particular modes of hybridity are pinned to social politicaland economic factors which are conditioned in turn by historical experiencesof cultural encounters Extensive debate about the political purchase of hybridityhas prompted scholars such as Robert Young (1995) to distinguish between twokinds of hybridity organic and intentional Organic hybridity which has beenaligned with creolization and metissage is close to the fusion model oftenmanifestin intercultural theory It results in new cultural practices and identities withoutconscious contestation and serves a stabilizing function in settling cultural dif-ferences In this kind of hybridity agency inheres in cosmopolitanism the abilityto cross between cultures and to master their hybrid forms In contrast intentionalhybridity focuses on the process of negotiation between different practices andpoints of view It is characterized by division and separation and tends to be self-re exive with the negotiation process inevitably pinpointing areas of con ict In

Diagram 4 ProposedModel for Interculturalism

46 LoGilbert

this instance agency hinges on the degree to which cultural forms resist dilutionandor co-option According to Young the two categories of hybridity the in-tentional and the organic can be in operation at the same time resulting in anantithetical movement of coalescence and antagonism This offers a

dialectical model for cultural interaction an organic hybridity which willtend towards fusion in con ict with intentional hybridity which enables acontestatory activity a politicized setting of cultural differences againsteach other dialogically (199522)

Debates about hybridity in postcolonial theory tend to go hand in hand withdiscussions of authenticity Grif ths reminds us that ldquoauthenticityrdquo is a politicallycharged concept rather than a ldquonaturalrdquo or preexisting attribute While it may bepolitically exigent for non-Western peoples to deploy discourses of authenticityin order to bolster their cultural authority in the hands of Western critics andcommentators the sign of the ldquoauthenticrdquo can easily become a fetishized com-modity that grounds the legitimacy of other cultures ldquonot in their practice butin our desirerdquo (Grif ths 199482) That much intercultural theatre has been drivenby an intense interest in harnessing ldquotraditionalrdquo performance forms suggests weshould treat authenticity with caution recognizing that it registers and respondsto hierarchies of power In this context the ability to manipulate markers ofauthenticity becomes another measure of agency

Sites of Intervention

If postcolonialism is to denaturalize the universalist vision of the more egre-gious kinds of interculturalism it must bring into focus such aspects of theatre aslanguage space the body costume and spectatorship as ideologically laden signsystems as well as potential sites of hybridity By brie y outlining politicized waysof reading such sign systems20 we hope in the nal section of this essay to suggestpathways into intercultural projects that resist an unproblematized transfer of cul-ture

On the whole intercultural theatre has tended to favor visual spectacle overlinguistic innovation nevertheless there are signi cant language-based issues thatpertain to both its processes and products An elementary but immensely im-portant question is the matter of whose language is used for everyday commu-nication during the devising and rehearsing of speci c productions The fact thatEnglish has become the lingua franca in an increasingly globalized arts communitygives its native speakers considerable power to substantiate their views andorsecure their particular agendas In this respect we should remember that thewide-scale imposition of imperial languages on non-Western peoples has consti-tuted an insidious form of epistemic violence since the system of values inherentin a language becomes the ldquosystem upon which social economic and politicaldiscourses are groundedrdquo (Ashcroft Grif ths and Tif n 1995283) To ask whosevalues are heard and whose are silenced by the use of speci c languages thereforeseems essential to a more politicized form of interculturalism In addition wemight ask how linguistic translationsare conducted and whose interests they serveDoes the translator function as a negotiator or a type of ldquonative informantrdquo Whathappens to linguistic concepts that resist translation or adaptation In terms oftheatrical product language issues are equally complicated How do staged lan-guages animate one another Which carries the cultural authority What happensto the performative features of verbal enunciation particularly when stories frompredominantly oral cultures are presented How might we reread verbally silencedbodies in different ways

Cross-Cultural Theatre Praxis 47

Since intercultural theatre stages a meeting of cultures in both physical andimaginative realmsmdashthe actual place(s) where a project takes place as well as the ctional spaces represented by the mise-en-scenemdashits spatial semantics also de-mand analysis Space is neither neutral nor homogenous it inevitably colors thoserelationships within its limits especially on the stage where con gurations ofspace take on symbolic meaning We need to ask then how the physical spacemeeting place in ects intercultural collaborationWhose ground are we on Whatare the power relations inscribed in the architectural aspects of that place Howcan theatre provide a space for negotiatingor subverting the relationships its spatialcon gurations foster We also need to examine the ideological assumptions thatinhere in the imaginative space(s) created by the scenography What does the setfor instance convey about the cultures involved in the collaboration Whichactors and characters have access topriority over what spaces Where are theborders between cultures and how are they maintained traversed or brokendown What kind of cultural landscape is suggested by the stagescape

Postcolonial theorizing of geography cartography and spatial history showshow space is constructed in the nexus of power and culture rather than simplyexisting as an ontological category This kind of politicized approach brings intofocus the disjunctive gap between visible space and its ctional referent (what weinfer or imagine from our culturally in ected reading of proxemics) It is thenpossible to explore the rhizomatic potential of interculturalismmdashits ability to makemultiple connections and disconnections between cultural spacesmdashand to createrepresentations that are unbounded and open and potentially resistant to im-perialist forms of closure

The body in intercultural theatre is equally subject to multiple inscriptionsproducing an unstable signi er rather than a totalized identity It is a site of con-vergence for contesting discourses even though it may be marked with the dis-tinctive signs of a particular culture Postcolonial theory aims to foreground theways in which power is inscribed on and negotiated through the body Suchtheory continually questions what is spoken through the body how its languagesoperate and in the service of whose vested interests It maintains that the bodyis not only a site of knowledgepower but also a site of resistance which inElizabeth Groszrsquos words ldquoexerts a recalcitrance and always entails the possibilityof counterstrategic re-inscription [because] it is capable of being self-marked self-represented in alternative waysrdquo (199064) We need then to look at how resis-tance is expressed in relation to performative bodies how those bodies encodedifference and speci city and how they can prevent the universalizing impulseof transculturalism

As categories that are constructed through visible differences race and genderhave particular signi cance in this respect it is important to note however thatthese are complex and even unstable categories being historically conditionedrather than determined solely by biology One of the problems intercultural the-atre often faces is how to avoid essentialist constructions of race and gender whilestill accounting for the irreducible speci city of certain bodies and body behav-iors A common response is to elevate particular roles in source texts to the level ofarchetypes that can then be played by any skilled performer Peter Brookrsquos Ma-habharata has been accused of this approach (Dasgupta 1991 Bharucha 199368ndash87) This process of distillation strips the readable signs of culture from the sourcetext rather than provoke the audience to examine the tensions between partici-pating cultures There is no dialogic interaction instead a speci c body is sub-merged in the archetypal role according to the aesthetic principles of the projectPostcolonial theory warns against the dehistoricizing effects of such distillationprocesses It focuses on analyzing the gap between the material body and what itis supposed to represent This involves examining movement as well as bodily ap-

48 LoGilbert

pearance since as Pavis notes ldquoactors simultaneously reveal the culture of thecommunity where they have trained and where they live and the bodily tech-nique they have acquiredrdquo (19963) Rather than working from principles of ab-straction an intercultural practice informed by postcolonialism would play upcultural differences without attempting to deny the effects of the political econ-omy that underpins the project The hybrid counter-energies that result from theclash between the symbolic space and the culturally inscribed body can then pro-duce ldquoa radical heterogeneity discontinuity [and] the perpetual revolutionof formrdquo(Young 199525)

A politicized reading of costume is similarly necessary to the formulation of amore comprehensive theory about intercultural performance It seems that partof the attraction of interculturalism has to do with the fantasy of stepping intoldquonativerdquo costume in a process of cultural transvestism that does anything butsubvert power hierarchies As Gail Ching-Liang Low argues the fantasy of cross-cultural dressing identi es clothes as a ldquolsquobadge and advertisementrsquo of [the domi-nant culturersquos] ability to cross the class and cultural gaprdquo hence cultural transvestismoffers ldquothe promise of lsquotransgressiversquo pleasure without the penalties of actualchangerdquo (198992ndash93) If such transvestism could be used to draw attention tothe dif culties that inhere in crossing cultural gaps costume would then becomeanother possible site of resistant inscription rather than a conduit for the one-waycultural transfer that currently characterizes certain forms of interculturalismThisis where postcolonial theories about mimicry masquerade and self-consciousconstructions of subjectivity can come into play because they treat costume as amalleable and even ambiguous signi er rather than a transparent sign of particulargender racial social and national identities

Degrees of power and privilege are also embedded in the framing mechanismsthrough which particular elements of a performance are presented to its audi-ence(s) Typically intercultural theatre positions the performance traditions andoractual bodies of ldquootherrdquo cultures as focal points of the Western viewerrsquos specularconsumption and it is through this kind of untroubled and desiring gaze thatrei ed images of cultural difference are validated and circulated on the ldquointer-nationalrdquo arts market If intercultural theatre means to address the potential in-equities involved in Western appropriations of other cultural traditions then itsadherents must conceive of a theatre that somehow engages with its own estab-lished ldquolookingrdquo relations Interventionary frameworks and other metatheatricaldevicesmdashthese might range from direct audience address to self-conscious roleplaying to forum discussionmdashcan be used to problematize the implicitly im-perialist object-relations model of cross-cultural spectatorship Within the self-re exive theatre that we envision the hybridizing of cultural fragments wouldbe far from seamless cultural tensions would not be hidden nor difference nat-uralized

Conclusion

We have attempted to map the eld of cross-cultural theatre as a way of think-ing through its complexities and contradictions Despite our efforts to integratea diverse range of theories and practices into a ldquobig-picturerdquo account of the eldwe are not advocating a totalizing theory of cultural exchange Rather our dis-cussion is designed to enable a strategic way of rethinking the local and context-speci c through the global and vice versa This sort of matrixed model we wouldargue proffers a more nuanced method of actualizing and analyzing the range ofwork that is increasingly becoming a globalized praxis

Our all too brief survey of potential sites of intervention in the practice andinterpretation of intercultural theatre outlines some of the ways in which the

Cross-Cultural Theatre Praxis 49

mise-en-scene can be politicized and the notion of cultural hegemony relativizedIn an age where cultural boundaries are continually traversed and identities arebecoming increasingly hybridized an intercultural theatre practice informed bypostcolonial theory can potentially function as a site where this intersecting ofcultures is both re ected and critiqued Such a practice would align with (thoughnot necessarily replicate) Gomez-Penarsquos formulation of ldquoborder artrdquo in whichthe performerrsquos job is ldquoto trespass bridge interconnect reinterpret remap andrede nerdquo the limits of culture (199612) It is vital that intercultural theatrersquospotential to cross cultures is not co-opted and neutralized by the ldquoweakerrdquo formsof postmodernism which tend to result in an abstract depoliticized and ahis-torical notion of ldquodifferencerdquo or in effect a masked ldquoindifferencerdquo In this re-spect Homi Bhabharsquos clari cation of postcolonial hybridity as based on anagonistic relationship rather than a seamless fusion offers a workable model foran ethics as well as an aesthetics of cross-cultural engagement

Hybrid hyphenations emphasise the incommensurable elements [] as thebasis of cultural identi cations What is at issue is the performative natureof differential identities the regulation and negotiation of those spaces thatare continually contingently ldquoopening outrdquo remaking the boundariesexposing the limits of any claim to a singular or autonomous sign of dif-ferencemdashbe it class gender or race Such assignations of social differ-encesmdashwhere difference is neither One nor the Other but something elsebesides in-betweenmdash nd their agency in [] an interstitial future thatemerges in between the claims of the past and the needs of the present(1994219)

The kind of hyphenated hybridity that Bhabha outlines is already within theconceptual reach of interculturalism It is now time for a more sustained andsystematic engagement with the politics of its production

Notes

1 ldquoAgencyrdquo refers here to the potential to act or perform an action autonomously it registersdegrees of power and knowledge combined since to act autonomously is to understand theideological systems in which one is imbricated

2 For an extended discussion of multiculturalism in Canada Australia and the United Statessee Gunew (199351ndash65)

3 See Bennett (1996144ndash47) for examples of small ldquomrdquo multicultural theatre in which blind-cast productions of Shakespearersquos The Tempest unwittingly reproduced dominant culturalvalues

4 Guillermo Gomez-Pena critiques a similar model of intercultural encounter in his conceptof ldquocorporaterdquo or ldquotransnationalrdquo multiculturalism which he argues characterizes manybusiness and media conglomeratesrsquo current interest in difference Such difference performsthe ldquopassive roles of glossy images and exotic backgroundrdquo and real diversity is ldquo attenedand equalized by high production valuesrdquo (200112)

5 Examples of big ldquoMrdquo multicultural theatre include various projects done by El Teatro Cam-pesino (US) Talawa (Britain) Doppio Teatro and Urban Theatre Projects (Australia) andCahoots Theatre Projects (Canada) Of course there have been numerous projects (espe-cially in non-Western countries) that t within our de nition of multicultural theatre al-though the speci c practitioners involved may not identify their work in this way Examplesinclude projects by Five Arts Centre (Malaysia) William Kentridge and the HandspringPuppet Company (South Africa) Rustom Bharucha (India) and Gomez-Pena (USAMexico)

6 Our identi cation of ghetto and migrant theatres is in uenced by Richard Fotheringhamrsquoswork ([1987] 1992197ndash98)

7 For further explication of community theatre see Baz Kershaw (1992)

50 LoGilbert

8 For some time postcolonial theatre has been well theorized as a conceptual category albeita contested one however in-depth engagement with postcolonialism has been conspicu-ously absent from discussions of cross-cultural performance work in journals such as TDRSimilarly Patrice Pavisrsquos introduction to The Intercultural Performance Reader (1996) virtuallydismisses the eld of postcolonial theatre even though some of the bookrsquos contents clearly t within this grouping

9 Wole Soyinka Derek Walcott and Girish Karnad are the most prominent of a very largeand diverse group of dramatists who might be catagorized as ldquopostcolonialrdquo Well-knownindigenous theatre groups in countries permanently colonized by European powers includeKooemba Jdarra (Australia) Taki Rua Productions (New Zealand) Spiderwoman (USA) andNative Earth Performing Arts (Canada) See Gilbert and Tompkins (1996) for an extendedaccount of the eld

10 See the introduction to Christopher Balmersquos book Decolonizing the Stage Theatrical Syncre-tism and Post-Colonial Drama (1999) for an extended history of the conceptual category ofsyncretic theatre Balme has been the key theorist of this form of cross-cultural performancefor several years though he initially assessed its overarching function as cultural rapproche-ment rather than decolonization andor resistance

11 His notable theatre projects include Tooth of Crime (1973) Mother Courage (1975) The Pro-metheus Project (1983ndash85) and Three Sisters (1995ndash97)

12 The Tales from South Asia project as documented by Sharon Grady and Phillip Zarilli (1994)exhibits most of the features of the collaborative model The stated aims of the projectrsquosinitiators were to

develop a strategy of presentation and representation which engages an audienceandor students in ldquodifferencerdquo without stereotyping essentializing romanticizingthe ldquoother and keeping onersquos audience aware of contestation as a social realityrdquo(Grady and Zarilli 1994169)

13 Similar celebratory responses can be found in Williams (1992) and Wilshire and Wilshire(1989)

14 This position has been described elsewhere as ldquohappy hybridityrdquo (see Lo 2000)15 Schechnerrsquos 1989 article ldquoIntercultural Themesrdquo maps his thinking on the subject up to

the end of the 1980s see his 1996 interview with Pavis for a more recent account16 On a similar note Craig Latrell recently argued for a more complex reading of intercultural

exchange beyond the ldquovictim-victimizer narrativerdquo The non-Western cultures should notbe perceived as passive receivers of Western ideas but rather active manipulators of suchin uences (200045ndash46) His analysis of the speci city of theatrical agency is howeverweakened by the lack of attention to historical speci city and particularly the impact ofcolonialism in Singapore and Indonesia

17 For detailed explanation see Pavis (19924ndash20)18 Pavis adheres to the idea of turning the hourglass over for other perspectives but unlike

his earlier theorization which advocated the reversal as a way for the source culture tomonitor its own process of exchange the latest discussion appears to consolidate the primacyof the dominant culture

At the end of the process when spectators feel themselves buried alive under thesand of signs and symbols they have no other salvation than to give up and turn thehourglass upside down Then the perspective inverts and one must reverse andrelativize the sediments accumulated in the receiving culture and judge them fromthe point of view of alterity and relativity (199618)

19 For a fuller account of various modes of hybridity see Lo (2000152ndash55)20 See Gilbert (199813ndash25) for a more detailed discussion of the ways in which postcolonial

theory can be used to interpret ideological aspects of performance

References

Ambush Benny Sato1989 ldquoPluralism to the Bonerdquo American Theatre 615

Cross-Cultural Theatre Praxis 51

Ang Ien and John Stratton1994 ldquoMulticultural Imagined Communities Cultural Difference and National Iden-

tity in Australia and the USArdquo Continuum The Australian Journal of Media andCulture 8 2124ndash58

Ashcroft Bill Gareth Grif ths and Helen Tif n eds1995 The Post-Colonial Studies Reader London Routledge

Balme Christopher1999 Decolonizing the Stage Theatrical Syncretism and Post-Colonial Drama Oxford Ox-

ford University Press

Barba Eugenio1996 ldquoEurasian Theatrerdquo In The Intercultural Performance Reader edited by Patrice Pav-

ice 217ndash22 London Routledge

Bennett Susan1996 Performing Nostalgia Shifting Shakespeare and the ContemporaryPast LondonRout-

ledge

Bhabha Homi1994 The Location of Culture London Routledge

Bharucha Rustom1993 Theatre and the World Performance and the Politics of Culture London Routledge2000 The Politics of Cultural Practice Thinking through Theatre in an Age of Globalisation

London Athlone Press

Brandon James1990 ldquoContemporary Japanese Theatre Interculturalism and Intraculturalismrdquo In The

Dramatic Touch of Difference Theatre Own and Foreign edited by Erika Fischer-Lichte Michael Gissenwehrer and Josephine Riley 89ndash97 Tubingen Narr

Brown John Russell1998 ldquoTheatrical Pillage in Asia Redirecting the Intercultural Traf crdquo New Theatre

Quarterly 14 539ndash19

Carlson Marvin1990 ldquoPeter Brookrsquos The Mahabharata and Ariane Mnouchkinersquos LrsquoIndiade as Ex-

amples of Contemporary Cross-cultural Theatrerdquo In The Dramatic Touch of Dif-ference Theatre Own and Foreign edited by Erika Fischer-Lichte Michael Gissen-wehrer and Josephine Riley 49ndash56 Tubingen Narr

Carter David1986 ldquoThe Natives Are Getting Restless Nationalism Multiculturalism and Migrant

Writingrdquo Island Magazine 25263ndash8

Chin Daryl1991 ldquoInterculturalism Postmodernism Pluralismrdquo In Interculturalism and Performance

Writings from PAJ edited by Bonnie Marranca and Gautam Dasgupta 83ndash95New York PAJ Publications

Clifford James1994 ldquoDiasporasrdquo Cultural Anthropology 9 3 302ndash38

Dasgupta Gautam1991 ldquoThe Mahabharata Peter Brookrsquos Orientalismrdquo In Interculturalism and Perfor-

mance Writings from PAJ edited by Bonnie Marranca and Gautam Dasgupta 75ndash82 New York PAJ Publications

De Reuck Jenny2000 ldquolsquoThe mirror shattered into tiny piecesrsquo Reading Gender and Culture in the

Japan Foundation Asia Centrersquos LEARrdquo Intersections Online Asian Studies Journal3 6 httpwwwsshemurdocheduauintersectionsissue3jenny3html (12January 2001)

34 LoGilbert

the defamiliarizing potential created by the lack of ldquo trdquo between actor and roleinto the normative conventions of Western theatrical realism3

Another common theatrical form included in the small ldquomrdquo multiculturalcate-gory is folkloric display a performance practice that showcases speci c culturalart forms in discrete categories often within a festival model Based primarily onthe fetishization of cultural difference folkloric theatre trades in notionsof historytradition and authenticity in order to gain recognition for the cultural capital ofdisenfranchised groups But as Gareth Grif ths warns authenticity has its owntraps it ldquomay overwrite and overdetermine the full range of representationsrdquothrough which community identities are articulated (199472) and ldquodisavow pos-sibilities of hybridized subjectsrdquo (199476) Folkloricization allows for a selectivepast but not a present or a future According to David Carter instead of a modeof interaction it presents ldquoa model of performanceobservation [of] objectsub-jectrdquo (19865)4

Big ldquoMrdquo multicultural theatre is generally a counterdiscursive practice that aimsto promote cultural diversity access to cultural expression and participation inthe symbolic space of the national narrative Its processes and products are in-formed by an expressed agenda that speaks to a politics of marginality5 Canadaand Australia have well-established track records in this form of theatre largelybecause of cial multiculturalism has played an increasingly signi cant role innation-building since the 1970s This is not to say that all big ldquoMrdquo multiculturaltheatre practice is cross-cultural as the following discussion of ghetto theatredemonstrates

Several types of theatre practice fall under the broad category of big ldquoMrdquomulticultural theatre ghetto theatre migrant theatre and community theatre6

Ghetto theatre tends to be monocultural it is staged for and by a speci c ethniccommunity and is usually communicated in the languages of that communityThe political ef cacy of this type of multicultural intervention is arguably limitedsince the performances are largely ldquoin-houserdquo and tend to focus on narrativesabout origins and loss Much ghetto theatre is infused with a nostalgic privilegingof the homeland (real or imagined) as seen from a diasporic perspective with theresult that more radical cross-cultural negotiations are muted

Migrant theatre is centrally concerned with narratives of migration and adap-tation often using a combination of ethno-speci c languages to denote culturalin-between-ness Cross-cultural negotiation is more visible in migrant theatrewhere there is an emerging exploration of cultural hybridity re ected in aestheticform as well as narrative content While one cultural group is usually responsiblefor the production and staging of migrant theatre it frequently plays not only tothat group but also to wider audiences albeit to a lesser extent hence cross-cultural negotiations may also occur at the level of reception

Community theatre is characterized by social engagement it is theatre primarilycommitted to bringing about actual change in speci c communities This focuson cultural activism is seen as an oppositional practice concerned with subvertingthose ldquodominant cultural practices which render people passive [as] consumersrdquoof imposed cultural commodities (Watt 199163) A commitment to cultural de-mocracy distinguishes community theatre from other types of community-generated performances that go under the general rubric of ldquoamateurrdquo theatreThe aesthetics of community theatre are shaped by the culture of its audience7

The constitution of the performance group and the subject matter may be or-ganized around common interests (such as gender ethnicity or shared socialexperiences) or de ned in terms of geographical location Multicultural com-munity theatre generally incorporates a range of languages and cultural resourcesincluding performing traditions drawn from the community Community arts

Cross-Cultural Theatre Praxis 35

workers are often employed to facilitate the work and the performances are typ-ically presented back to the community as well as to ldquooutsidersrdquo Cross-culturalnegotiations therefore occur at a number of levels in this type of theatre

Postcolonial Theatre

While ldquopostcolonial theatrerdquo has sometimes been used as a portmanteau de-scriptor for performance work expressing any kind of resistance politics particu-larly concerning race class andor gender oppression the term more often refersto a range of theatre texts and practices that have emerged from cultures subjectedto Western imperialism8 In its more narrowly focused de nition postcolonialtheatre is a geopolitical category designating both a historical and a discursiverelation to imperialism whether that phenomenon is treated critically or ambi-valently (see Gilbert and Tompkins 19962ndash7) The discursive axis of postcolonialtheatremdashthat it engages with imperialism in either explicit or implicit waysmdashmoves away from concepts of a naotildeve teleological sequence in which postcolo-nialism merely supersedes colonialism Hence speci c theatre practices aredeemed postcolonial not simply because of their cultural origins but also becauseof their textual and performative features While the best known postcolonialtheatre derives from indigenous groups in areas formerly colonized by Europeanandor American cultures some settler theatre in such regions is included (ifsometimes contentiously) in this category9

Most postcolonial theatre is driven by a political imperative to interrogate thecultural hegemony that underlies imperial systems of governance education so-cial and economic organization and representation Its discourses of resistancespeak primarily to the colonizing projects of Western imperial centers andor tothe neocolonial pressures of localregional postindependence regimes Resistanceis expressed in genres ranging from realism agitprop and forum theatre to po-litical satires and allegories where criticism of various ldquosensitiverdquo issues may beldquomutedrdquo to avoid the censorship of a politically repressive government or rulingclass In this context resistance is not conceptualized as pure or simply thereavailable in texts or social practices rather it is grounded in multiple and some-times contradictory structures never easily located because it is partial incom-plete ambiguous and often complicit in the apparatus it seeks to transgress Thenotion of resistance as unstable and potentially ambivalent strengthens the casefor the inclusion of some settler theatre in the postcolonial category since asStephen Slemon maintains postcolonialism is concerned with ldquothe project ofarticulating the formsmdashand modes and tropes and guresmdashof anti-colonial tex-tual resistance wherever they occur and in all their guisesrdquo (199035)

Postcolonial theatre usually involves cross-cultural negotiation at the drama-turgical and aesthetic levels because of the historical contact between culturesCross-cultural processes may also be an important part of the working practicesespecially in regions with bicultural or multicultural populations While not allpostcolonial theatre is necessarily cross-cultural it frequently assumes some kindof interpretive encounter between differently empowered cultural groups Interms of reception audiences for postcolonial theatre are complex typically vary-ing across geographical regions while being differentially in uenced by class andrace For instance Aboriginal theatre in Australia plays primarily to the dominantldquowhiterdquo culture while Wole Soyinkarsquos work nds its main audience among theeducated classes of Nigerian society as well as among cosmopolitan groups in-ternationally

Postcolonial theatre has been discussed under two main categories syncretictheatre and nonsyncretic theatre Syncretic theatre integrates performance elements

36 LoGilbert

of different cultures into a form that aims to retain the cultural integrity of thespeci c materials used while forging new texts and theatre practices10 This in-tegrative process tends to highlight rather than disguise shifts in the meaningfunction and value of cultural fragments as they are moved from their traditionalcontexts In postcolonial societies syncretic theatre generally involves the incor-poration of indigenous material into a Western dramaturgical framework whichis itself modi ed by the fusion process Christopher Balme argues that such syn-cretism activates a ldquocultural and aesthetic semiotic recoding that ultimately ques-tions the basis of normative Western dramardquo this creative endeavor is to bedistinguished from ldquotheatrical exoticismrdquo in which ldquoindigenous cultural texts arearbitrarily recoded and semanticised in a Western aesthetic and ideological framerdquowhere they tend to signify mere alterity (19994ndash5) Well-known examples ofsyncretic postcolonial theatre include works by Sistren Theatre Collective andDerek Walcott in the Caribbean Girish Karnad in India and Wole Soyinka andFemi Oso san in Nigeria A signi cant number of Aboriginal Maori and nativeNorth American plays also use syncretic performance strategies as part of theirlarger agenda of cultural recuperation

Nonsyncretic theatre by de nition does not merge disparate cultural forms butrather uses imposed imperial genresaesthetics or less often wholly indigenousones to voice postcolonial concerns For instance Western-style realism has beenwidely used to stage anticolonial narratives emanating from both indigenous andsettler communities Among the latter Australiarsquos Louis Nowra and CanadarsquosSharon Pollock gure as high-pro le playwrights whose work could be charac-terized as postcolonial but not syncretic The distinction between syncretic andnonsyncretic theatre is more dif cult to maintain in cases such as indigenousperformances of Shakespearian texts where European characters are enacted byldquoblackrdquo or ldquocoloredrdquo actors instituting tension between the performance at issueand the tradition that it transgresses It could be argued here that syncretisminheres in the juxtaposition of the performersrsquo bodies (as culturally coded sign-systems) to scripts ineluctably embedded with markers of a different culture Thisexample suggests that postcolonial theatre is best conceptualized as exhibitingvarying degrees of syncretism rather than falling neatly into opposing categories

Intercultural Theatre

Whereas multicultural theatre is often the effect of state-determined culturalmanagement andor a grassroots response to the ldquolived realityrdquo of cultural plu-ralism and postcolonial theatre is produced as part of (and in opposition to) ahistorical process of imperialism and neoimperialism intercultural theatre is char-acterized as a ldquovoluntarist intervention circumscribed by the agencies of the stateand the marketrdquo (Bharucha 200033) Multicultural theatre functions within astatist framework premised on ideals of citizenship and the management of cul-turalethnic difference while intercultural theatre and to a certain extent post-colonial theatre have more latitude to explore and critique alternative formsof citizenship and identity across and beyond national boundaries although thesubjectivities they produce are not wholly free of state mediation Put simplyintercultural theatre is a hybrid derived from an intentional encounter betweencultures and performing traditions It is primarily a Western-based tradition witha lineage in modernist experimentation through the work of Tairov MeyerholdBrecht Artaud and Grotowski More recently intercultural theatre has beenassociated with the works of Richard Schechner Peter Brook Eugenio BarbaAriane Mnouchkine Robert Wilson Tadashi Suzuki and Ong Keng Sen Evenwhen intercultural exchanges take place within the ldquonon-Westrdquo they are often

Cross-Cultural Theatre Praxis 37

mediated through Western culture andor economics Ongrsquos ldquoPan-Asianrdquo spec-taculars LEAR (1997) and Desdemona (1999) are cases in point (see De Reuck2000 and Grehan 2000)

One only has to refer to Pavisrsquos The Intercultural Performance Reader (1996) toappreciate the range of approaches encompassed by the term ldquointerculturalismrdquoand the extent to which it evades any neat de nition While attempting to mapdevelopments in the eld The Reader documents diverse positions that fore-ground interculturalism as a contested site for both theory and practice Despitethis apparent diversity there is evidence pointing to interculturalism as a Westernvision of exchange Pavis himself acknowledges this bias explaining that the col-lection was ldquolargely produced by and aimed at a European and Anglo-Americanreadershiprdquo (199625) The privileging of the West is evident in the ways in whichthe essays are grouped within the book for instance the juxtapositioning of PartII titled ldquoIntercultural Performance from the Western Point of Viewrdquo with PartIII ldquoIntercultural Performance from Another Point of Viewrdquo replicates the ldquoWestand the restrdquo binary paradigm and reveals a problematic ideological aporia Putdifferently interculturalism as it has been theorized and documented thus far isalready overdetermined by the West

Although Pavis echoing Erika Fischer-Lichte claims that it is too soon topropose a global theory of interculturalism (19961) there already exists a glob-alizing practice that demands further political and ethical interrogationSimilarlyJulie Holledge and Joanne Tompkins (2000) contend that intercultural theatre istoo varied and process-based to warrant a general theory They opt instead for asite-speci c study of intercultural projects But this reluctance to engage with theldquobig picturerdquo arguably runs the risk of consolidating the ideological premises ofinterculturalism as a Western-dominated form of knowledge production By priv-ileging content speci city the false dichotomy between praxis and theory is main-tained this also has the effect of relegating issues of ethics to the particular andthe ldquoone off rdquo rather than relating these to larger issues of knowledge formationwithin institutional national and global contexts

Our study of a range of intercultural practice and the theoretical discussion ithas generated suggests that the eld can be loosely divided into three subcate-gories

Transcultural theatre aims to transcend culture-speci c codi cation in order toreach a more universal human condition Transcultural directors are interested inparticularities and traditions only insofar as they enable the directors to identifyaspects of commonality rather than difference (Pavis 19966) There are manyvariations to this search for the universal In the case of Peter Brook transcen-dence of the particular is a necessary part of the mythic quest for origins andWestern theatrersquos supposed loss of ldquopurityrdquo This return to sources and the reap-propriation of primitive languages is a metaphysical quest for a truth that holdseverywhere and at any time irrespective of historical or cultural differences InOrghast (1970) for instance Brook attempted to create an original tonal languageby tapping into a primeval consciousness Eugenio Barbarsquos work in ISTA (Inter-national School of Theatre Anthropology) is another form of transculturaltheatrePavis distinguishes Barbarsquos work as ldquopreculturalrdquo it does not aim to identify thecommon origins of cultures in Brookrsquos way but rather seeks what is common toldquoEasternrdquo and ldquoWesternrdquo theatre practitioners before they become individualizedor ldquoacculturatedrdquo in particular traditions and techniques of performance (19967)According to Barba the goal is to compare the work methods of both Easternand Western theatre and ldquoto reach down into a common technical substratumrdquowhich is ldquothe domain of pre-expressivity [] At this pre-expressive level theprinciples are the same even though they nurture the enormous expressive dif-

38 LoGilbert

ferences which exist between one tradition and another one actor and anotherrdquo(1996220) Barba stresses that these principles are analogous to one another ratherthan homologous nevertheless his search for an essence beyond socialization ischaracteristic of the desire to transcend social and cultural ldquotrappingsrdquo in a movetoward a ldquopurerrdquo mode of communication and theatrical presence

Intracultural theatre is Rustom Bharucharsquos term to denote cultural encountersbetween and across speci c communities and regions within the nation-stateMore speci cally in relation to his own ldquointraculturalrdquo work Bharucha pointsto internal diversity within the boundaries of a particular region or nation Thissense of the intracultural has similarities to the multicultural

insofar as they assume either the interaction or the coexistence of regionaland local cultures within the larger framework of the nation-state How-ever while the ldquointrardquo prioritizes the interactivity and translation of di-verse cultures the ldquomultirdquo upholds a notion of cohesiveness (Bharucha20009)

In this way intracultural theatre serves a critical function in challenging ldquoorgan-icist notions of culture by highlighting the deeply fragmented and divided society[] that multicultural rhetoric of the state refuses to acknowledgerdquo (Bharucha20009)

Extracultural theatre refers to theatre exchanges that are conducted along a West-East and North-South axis The converse of intraculturalism this form of inter-culturalism goes back to the modernist pioneers who looked to the non-West torejuvenate Western art Schechner is the best-known contemporary exponent ofthis practice his experimental productions dating back to the late 1960s with thestaging of a West Irian birth ritual in Dionysus in 69 (1968) and subsequentlydeveloping through numerous theatre projects and theoretical essays in the eld11

While extracultural theatre can encompass some forms of transcultural theatre asin Brookrsquos Mahabharata (1985) it also includes intercultural experiments whichdo not aim to relativize or transcend cultural differences but rather to celebrateand even interrogate such differences as a source of cultural empowerment andaesthetic richness As a category of analysis extracultural theatre always begsquestions about the power dynamics inherent in the economic and political lo-cation of the participating cultures even if such questions are evaded in accountsof actual practice

The remainder of this essay will focus primarily on this extracultural form ofintercultural theatre

Modes of Conducting Intercultural Theatre

The range of working methods employed in intercultural theatre can generallybe positioned along a continuum One pole of the continuum is characterizedby a collaborative mode of exchange while the opposite pole is characterized asimperialistic Most intercultural theatre occurs somewhere between these twoextremes and speci c projects may shift along the continuum depending on thephase of cultural production It is vital that the continuum is conceived in pro-cessual rather than xed terms in order to foreground intercultural exchange asa dynamic process rather than a static transaction

Diagram 2 Continuum ofIntercultural Modes

Cross-Cultural Theatre Praxis 39

Collaborative

Intercultural exchange at this end of the continuum tends to emphasize theprocesses and politics of exchange rather than the theatrical product per se Thisform of theatre-making places great importance on cultural negotiations at alllevels from the highly personal and individualistic to the ldquosuperstructuralrdquo andinstitutional Collaborative interculturalism is often community-generated ratherthan market andor state-driven There is less of a focus on maintaining theldquopurityrdquo of the various cultures for exotic display The exchange process is oftenmarked by tension and incommensurability While there is a general desire tomaintain equitable power relations between partners the aim is not to producea harmonious experience of theatre-making but rather to explore the fullness ofcultural exchange in all its contradictions and convergences for all parties Thetheatre product may similarly resist forced synthesis revealing instead both thepositive and negative aspects of the encounter12 Ferdinand Ortizrsquos concept oftransculturation (not to be confused with transculturalism) offers a useful way ofanalyzing collaborative interculturalism by going beyond a model of easy fusionto account for both acquisition and loss at the same time In the transculturationprocess elements of each system of culture are lost in the creation of a thirdsystem Cultural encounter of this kind can be potentially counterhegemonic itallows minor cultures to act on dominant ones rather than merely submit tocultural loss in the transaction (see Taylor 199162ndash63)

Imperialistic

Intercultural exchange at this end of the continuum is often driven by a senseof Western culture as bankrupt and in need of invigoration from the non-WestThe resulting theatre tends to tap into ldquoOtherrdquo cultural traditions that are per-ceived as ldquoauthenticrdquo and uncontaminated by (Western) modernity Interculturalpractice in this mode is largely an aesthetic response to cultural diversity Thereis a discernible difference in agency between partners such inequity is oftenhistorically based and may continue in the present through economic politicaland technological dominance This form of theatre tends to be product-orientedand usually produced for the dominant culturersquos consumption Performances areoften highly spectacular with emphasis placed on the aesthetic and formal qualitiesof the mise-en-scene The intercultural work of practitioners such as ArianeMnouchkine has been described as imperialist though Mnouchkine refutes thischarge preferring to see her appropriations of Asian performing traditions as aform of indebtedness and ldquohomagerdquo Maria Shevtsova defends this position byasserting that Mnouchkine does not purport to use the ldquooriginalrdquo art form andthat her ldquoborrowingrdquo practices should be understood within the logic of herWestern system of aestheticism (1997102)

Responses to Interculturalism

Given the range of intercultural modalities it is not surprising that criticaltheoretical responses are similarly varied Generally speaking most commentatorshave analyzed interculturalism as practice their responses ranging from the ce-lebratory to the highly critical Schechnerrsquos earlier writings about interculturalpractice exemplify many aspects of the celebratory stance13 Schechner refers tothe intercultural experimentations in the US from the 1950s to the mid rsquo70s asa ldquogolden age of innocencerdquo

People didnrsquot question too much whether or not this interculturalism []was a continuation of colonialism a further exploitation of other cultures

40 LoGilbert

There was something simply celebratory about discovering how diversethe world was how many performance genres there were and how wecould enrich our own experience by borrowing stealing exchanging(198219)

This neoliberal embrace of cultural difference celebrates the possibilities of cul-tural fusion and the construction of radical subjectivities beyond national andethnic boundaries Intercultural practice in this sense is deeply imbricated inglobalization and the perceived deterritorialization of social cultural and politicalboundaries for those in the developed world even if this is not often acknowl-edged by the critics and practitioners themselves14 It should be noted thatSchechnerrsquos position has shifted signi cantly since then15 over the last decade inparticular his critical work shows less of a tendency to idealize cross-culturalexchange and a keener awareness of power relations He also acknowledges the

misunderstandings broken languages and failed transactions that occurwhen and where cultures collide overlap or pull away from each otherThese are seen not as obstacles to be overcome but as fertile rifts or erup-tions full of creative potential (19913)

At the other end of the scale is the ethical critique of intercultural practice asinvasive globalization Daryl Chin argues that

Interculturalism hinges on the questions of autonomy and empowermentTo deploy elements from the symbol system of another culture is a verydelicate enterprise In its crudest terms the question is when does thatusage act as cultural imperialism Forcing elements from disparate culturestogether does not seem to be a solution that makes much sense aestheti-cally ethically or philosophically What does that prove that the knowl-edge of other cultures exists That information about other cultures nowis readily available (199194)

For Bharucha likewise interculturalism cannot be separated from a larger his-tory of colonialism and orientalism (see also Dasgupta 1991) He contends thatinterculturalism is an inherently ethnocentric practice which seeks to synthesizecultural difference rather than respect its individual histories

The problem arises [] when the preoccupation with the ldquoself rdquo over-powers the representation of ldquootherrdquo cultures [and] when the Other isnot another but the projection of onersquos ego Then all one has is a glori -cation of the self and a co-option of other cultures in the name of repre-sentation (199328)

John Russell Brown adds

Exchange borrowing trade or looting across major frontiers diminishesany theatre because it transgresses its inherited reliance on the societyfrom which the drama takes its life and for which it was intended to beperformed [] However worthily it is intended intercultural theatricalexchange is in fact a form of pillage and the result is fancy-dress pre-tence or at best the creation of a small zoo in which no creature has itsfull life (199814)

Cross-Cultural Theatre Praxis 41

Such moral critiques while absolutely essential to the politicizing of intercul-turalism risk instigating a kind of paralysis insofar as they suggest that virtuallyno form of theatrical exchange can be ethical16 This position is clearly untenablefor a number of practitioners especially those whose art is derived from (andaims to explore) experiences of cultural hybridity For instance performanceartisttheorist Guillermo Gomez-Pena a self-confessed ldquochild of crisis and cul-tural syncretismrdquo (199338) sees his own work (and the desirable future of Amer-ican theatre) as inevitably pluralistic unavoidably intercultural But he is alsoacutely aware of the implications of intercultural work noting that it is ldquofunda-mental to address relationships of power and assumptions about privilege amongthe participating artists communities and countriesrdquo in order to develop ethicalmodels of theatrical exchange (19969) To facilitate this Gomez-Pena calls for amuch more rigorous public debate about cultural issues in general about equityand diversity about de nitions of ldquomulti- inter- intra- and cross-culturalrdquoabout which encounters between cultures are ldquosymmetrical and desirable andwhich are more reactionaryrdquo (199357) In projects such as Temple of Confessions(1994) A Seminar on Museum Race Relations (1995) and Mexterminator Project(1999)mdashdeliberately provocative works that are at times even ldquounethicalrdquomdashGomez-Pena relentlessly stages aspects of this debate always avoiding de nitiveanswers

Theoretical Models of Interculturalism

While many critics have posed theoretical challenges to the intercultural en-terprise there have been surprisingly few attempts to formulate a comprehensivemodel of intercultural exchange Marvin Carlson has offered a scale consisting ofseven categories of cross-cultural in uence based on ldquopossible relationships be-tween the culturally familiar and the culturally foreignrdquo (199050) While usefulfor differentiating types of projects this scale does not move beyond an essentiallytaxonomic analysis of the eld Fischer-Lichte takes a different tack focusingspeci cally on the adaptation process which she insists follows a model of ldquopro-ductive receptionrdquo rather than one of translation (1997154ndash55) Productive re-ception emphasizes aspects of a performance caused or in uenced by receptionand is aligned in Fischer-Lichtersquos work with the project of revitalizing tired the-atrical practices though she does not elaborate on the precise dynamics involved

Pavis has thus far been the only critic able to sustain a comprehensive modelof intercultural exchange His hourglass model depicts in its upper bowl theforeign or source culture ldquowhich is more or less codi ed and solidi ed in diverseanthropological sociocultural or artistic modelizationsrdquo (19924) This is repre-sented by lters 1 and 2 in the diagram below The ldquograins of culturerdquo trickledown to the lower bowl and are rearranged in the process The lters 3 through11 put in place by the target culture and the observer largely determine the nalformation of the grains17 The model focuses on ldquothe intercultural transfer be-tween source and target culturerdquo as a way of depicting the relativity of the notionof culture and the complicated relationship between partners in the exchange(19925)

Critique of the Hourglass Model

In practice Pavisrsquos hourglass is an accurate model of most intercultural workof the extracultural kind But the modelrsquos strength is also its weakness it cannotaccount for alternative and more collaborative forms of intercultural exchangeDespite Pavisrsquos wariness of a translationcommunication model of intercultural-ism his elaboration of the process of cultural transfer reveals its dependence on

42 LoGilbert

translation theory The main problem with this model is that it assumes a one-way cultural ow based on a hierarchy of privilege even though Pavis attemptsto relativize the power relations by claiming that the hourglass can be turnedupside-down ldquoas soon as the users of a foreign culture ask themselves how theycan communicate their own culture to another target culturerdquo (19925) Thishowever assumes that there is a ldquolevel-playing eldrdquo between the partners in theexchange and does not account for the fact that the bene ts of globalization andthe permeability of cultures and political systems are accessed differentially fordifferent communities and nations

A translation model of interculturalism therefore runs the risk of reproducingstrategies of containment As Tejaswine Niranjana points out

By employing certain modes of representing the othermdashwhich it therebyalso brings into beingmdashtranslation reinforces hegemonic versions of thecolonized helping them acquire the status of what Edward Said calls rep-resentations or objects without history (19923)

Diagram 3 Pavisrsquos hour-glass Model of InterculturalTheatre

Cross-Cultural Theatre Praxis 43

Pavis is not unaware of this danger

If [the hourglass] is only a mill it will blend the source culture destroy itsevery speci city and drop into the lower bowl an inert and deformed sub-stance which will have lost its original modeling without being moldedinto that of the target culture If it is only a funnel it will indiscriminatelyabsorb the initial substance without reshaping it through the series of l-ters or leaving any trace of the original matter (19925)

Having said this however Pavis is unable to account for interculturalism as aprocess of political negotiation For example he argues that the mise-en-sceneas the central site of interculturalism functions as a ldquokind of reglage (lsquo ne-tuningrsquo)rdquo which mediates between different contexts cultural backgrounds andtraditions (19926) ldquoFine-tuningrdquo serves to smooth over differences in ways thatbecome intelligible for the target culture Similarly ldquoreception-adaptersrdquo ( lter8) ll the lacunae in the transfer of cultural content and dissipate the tensions ofincommensurability in order to create a ldquoreadablerdquo text for the target culture

The teleology of the hourglass model ultimately reduces interculturalexchangeto an alimentary process According to this logic the body belongs to the targetculture while the source culture becomes the food which must be digested andassimilated As Pavis notes only the grains that are ldquosuf ciently nerdquo will ldquo owthrough [the hourglass neck] without any troublerdquo (19924) His model cannotaccount for blockage collisions and retroaction as sites of either intervention orresistance In the nal analysis intercultural exchange according to the hourglassmodel is a reductive process which distills cultural difference into essences thatcan be readily absorbed by the target culture While Pavis does acknowledge thein uence of the social context ( lters 10B and 10C) the temporally bound meta-phor of the hourglass suggests that sociohistorical factors rather than in ectingthe entire intercultural process simply constitute the nal lter before the the-atrical product is consumed by the target culture In short the hourglass modelis premised on aesthetics rather than on politics

Pavis does not stray far from this model in his more recent theorization of the eld (1996) proffering instead a more careful schematization of different formsand modes of intercultural practice Although he does acknowledge the proble-matics of power inequities between partners in the exchange noting that ldquotherecan be no sense in which Asian perspectives are always reversible and symmetricalwith those of the Westmdashas a purely functionalist use of the hourglass turnedover and over ad in nitum might lead us naively to believerdquo (19962) there islittle sense that he has revised the translation principles underlying his model18

Pavis takes account of some of the recent ethical critiques of interculturalismandis particularly wary of it being absorbed into a postmodernist form of culturalrelativism Although he claims that ldquoexchange implies a theory and an ethics ofalterityrdquo (199611) he does not foreground the ethical dimension in any discern-ible way Signi cantly Pavis claims that the kind of intercultural practice thatholds the most potential for ldquoresistance against standardization against the Eu-ropeanization of super-productionsrdquo is the ldquointer-corporeal work in which anactor confronts hisher technique and professional identity with those of theothersrdquo (1996150) By locating the potential for agency at this microscopic levelof actor training Pavis reveals the limitations of the hourglass model as an effectivetemplate for a politicized theorization of the entire eld of interculturalism

Matrixing Interculturalism and Postcolonialism

One way of approaching the problems raised by Pavisrsquos model of interculturaltheatre is to consider its mechanisms through the lens of postcolonial theory

44 LoGilbert

Despite their shared concern with the phenomenon of cultural encounter the-ories of interculturalism and postcolonialism have thus far developed as more orless asymmetrical discourses the former having roots in theatre anthropology(viaVictor Turner) and semiotics the latter in literary and cultural studies as well asin psychoanalysis (via Frantz Fanon) and poststructuralism Of the two discoursespostcolonial theory has been the most consistently political taking as its primaryimperative the task of exposing and redressing unequal power relationships be-tween cultures whereas interculturalism has concerned itself more often with theaesthetics of cultural transfer What postcolonial theory offers to current debatesabout interculturalism is a framework for analyzing such thorny issues as agencyhybridity and authenticity issues that lie at the heart of intercultural praxis Withits insistent stress on historicity and speci city postcolonial theory offers ways ofrelocating the dynamics of intercultural theatre within identi able elds of so-ciopolitical and historical relations This contextualizing enables us to ask at anypoint in the production and reception processes of intercultural work questionsabout individual and collective power Whose economic andor political interestsare being served How is the working process represented to the target audienceand why Who is the target audience and how can differences be addressed withinthis constituency How does a speci c intercultural event impact on the widersociopolitical environment

The term ldquointerculturalrdquo suggests an exploration of the interstice betweencultures it draws our attention to the hyphenated third space separating andconnecting different peoples The act of crossing cultures (with reference to Dol-limorersquos notions of travesty hybridity and con ict) should ideally activate bothcentrifugal and centripetal forces in the process of mutual contamination andinteraction This is an aspect which Pavisrsquos unilinear model of interculturalismcannot take into account We would therefore like to propose an alternativemodel of intercultural exchange which for the purposes of this essay focuses onthe ldquobig picturerdquo and uses some of Pavisrsquos categories and terminologies Ourmodel is both a template for an intercultural practice that encourages more mu-tuality and an attempted representation of the mutuality that has already existedat some level even if it has been limited and nonre exive indeed suppressed inmuch theorizing of particular projects Our aim is to adapt what is essentially anappropriativeassimilationist model into a more collaborativenegotiated oneThe model we have in mind draws inspiration from a toy we used to play withas children in both Malaysia and Australia The toy consisted of a piece of elasticstrung through the middle of a plastic disc The elastic string is held at each endwith the disc supported in the center By rotating the hands in a circular motionthe disc is rotated outward Once the disc is rotating the elastic is alternatelytightened and released to continue the spinning of the disc The disc moves ineither direction along the string depending on whether the tension is generatedby the left or the right hand

In our model intercultural exchange is represented as a two-way ow Bothpartners are considered cultural sources while the target culture is positionedalong the continuum between them The location of the target culture is not xed its position remains uid and depending on where and how the exchangeprocess takes place shifts along the continuum For instance if the performancetakes place in the domain of source culture B then the position of the targetculture moves closer to source Brsquos end of the continuum This uidity not onlyforegrounds the dialogic nature of intercultural exchange but also takes into ac-count the possibility of power disparity in the partnership

Both source cultures bring to the theatrical project cultural apparatuses shapedby their respective sociocultural milieu ( lters 1 and 2) and both undergo a seriesof transformations and challenges in the process of exchange ( lters 3 through 9)

Cross-Cultural Theatre Praxis 45

SourceCulture B

1 cultural modeling2 artistic modeling3 work of adaptation4 preparatory work by

actors5 choice of theatrical

form6 artistic modeling of

target culture7 sociological amp

anthropologicalmodeling of targetculture

8 cultural modeling oftarget culture

9 given and anticipatedconsequences

SourceCulture A

cultural modeling

artistic modeling

work of adaptation

preparatory work byactors

choice of theatricalform

artistic modeling oftarget culture

sociological ampanthropologicalmodeling of targetculture

cultural modeling oftarget culture

given and anticipatedconsequences

SociopoliticalContext

InterculturalProcess for

TargetCulture

SociopoliticalContext

1234

5

6

7

8

9

in relation to each other and in anticipation of the target culture Even if thetarget culture is aligned with one of the source cultures both partners still undergoa similar process of ltration and hybridization however differently experiencedPositioned at the tension between source cultures intercultural exchange is char-acterized both by gain and by loss attraction and disavowal This dialogism isrepresented by the centrifugal and centripetal forces indicated in the diagramabove The proposed model locates all intercultural activity within an identi ablesociopolitical context This serves not only to foreground the inseparability ofartistic endeavors from sociopolitical relations but also to remind us that theoryand reading strategies are themselves deeply imbricated in speci c histories andpolitics

Our model of intercultural theatre rests on a notion of differentiated hybriditythat works in multiple and sometimes opposing ways19 Postcolonial theory haslong recognized that particular modes of hybridity are pinned to social politicaland economic factors which are conditioned in turn by historical experiencesof cultural encounters Extensive debate about the political purchase of hybridityhas prompted scholars such as Robert Young (1995) to distinguish between twokinds of hybridity organic and intentional Organic hybridity which has beenaligned with creolization and metissage is close to the fusion model oftenmanifestin intercultural theory It results in new cultural practices and identities withoutconscious contestation and serves a stabilizing function in settling cultural dif-ferences In this kind of hybridity agency inheres in cosmopolitanism the abilityto cross between cultures and to master their hybrid forms In contrast intentionalhybridity focuses on the process of negotiation between different practices andpoints of view It is characterized by division and separation and tends to be self-re exive with the negotiation process inevitably pinpointing areas of con ict In

Diagram 4 ProposedModel for Interculturalism

46 LoGilbert

this instance agency hinges on the degree to which cultural forms resist dilutionandor co-option According to Young the two categories of hybridity the in-tentional and the organic can be in operation at the same time resulting in anantithetical movement of coalescence and antagonism This offers a

dialectical model for cultural interaction an organic hybridity which willtend towards fusion in con ict with intentional hybridity which enables acontestatory activity a politicized setting of cultural differences againsteach other dialogically (199522)

Debates about hybridity in postcolonial theory tend to go hand in hand withdiscussions of authenticity Grif ths reminds us that ldquoauthenticityrdquo is a politicallycharged concept rather than a ldquonaturalrdquo or preexisting attribute While it may bepolitically exigent for non-Western peoples to deploy discourses of authenticityin order to bolster their cultural authority in the hands of Western critics andcommentators the sign of the ldquoauthenticrdquo can easily become a fetishized com-modity that grounds the legitimacy of other cultures ldquonot in their practice butin our desirerdquo (Grif ths 199482) That much intercultural theatre has been drivenby an intense interest in harnessing ldquotraditionalrdquo performance forms suggests weshould treat authenticity with caution recognizing that it registers and respondsto hierarchies of power In this context the ability to manipulate markers ofauthenticity becomes another measure of agency

Sites of Intervention

If postcolonialism is to denaturalize the universalist vision of the more egre-gious kinds of interculturalism it must bring into focus such aspects of theatre aslanguage space the body costume and spectatorship as ideologically laden signsystems as well as potential sites of hybridity By brie y outlining politicized waysof reading such sign systems20 we hope in the nal section of this essay to suggestpathways into intercultural projects that resist an unproblematized transfer of cul-ture

On the whole intercultural theatre has tended to favor visual spectacle overlinguistic innovation nevertheless there are signi cant language-based issues thatpertain to both its processes and products An elementary but immensely im-portant question is the matter of whose language is used for everyday commu-nication during the devising and rehearsing of speci c productions The fact thatEnglish has become the lingua franca in an increasingly globalized arts communitygives its native speakers considerable power to substantiate their views andorsecure their particular agendas In this respect we should remember that thewide-scale imposition of imperial languages on non-Western peoples has consti-tuted an insidious form of epistemic violence since the system of values inherentin a language becomes the ldquosystem upon which social economic and politicaldiscourses are groundedrdquo (Ashcroft Grif ths and Tif n 1995283) To ask whosevalues are heard and whose are silenced by the use of speci c languages thereforeseems essential to a more politicized form of interculturalism In addition wemight ask how linguistic translationsare conducted and whose interests they serveDoes the translator function as a negotiator or a type of ldquonative informantrdquo Whathappens to linguistic concepts that resist translation or adaptation In terms oftheatrical product language issues are equally complicated How do staged lan-guages animate one another Which carries the cultural authority What happensto the performative features of verbal enunciation particularly when stories frompredominantly oral cultures are presented How might we reread verbally silencedbodies in different ways

Cross-Cultural Theatre Praxis 47

Since intercultural theatre stages a meeting of cultures in both physical andimaginative realmsmdashthe actual place(s) where a project takes place as well as the ctional spaces represented by the mise-en-scenemdashits spatial semantics also de-mand analysis Space is neither neutral nor homogenous it inevitably colors thoserelationships within its limits especially on the stage where con gurations ofspace take on symbolic meaning We need to ask then how the physical spacemeeting place in ects intercultural collaborationWhose ground are we on Whatare the power relations inscribed in the architectural aspects of that place Howcan theatre provide a space for negotiatingor subverting the relationships its spatialcon gurations foster We also need to examine the ideological assumptions thatinhere in the imaginative space(s) created by the scenography What does the setfor instance convey about the cultures involved in the collaboration Whichactors and characters have access topriority over what spaces Where are theborders between cultures and how are they maintained traversed or brokendown What kind of cultural landscape is suggested by the stagescape

Postcolonial theorizing of geography cartography and spatial history showshow space is constructed in the nexus of power and culture rather than simplyexisting as an ontological category This kind of politicized approach brings intofocus the disjunctive gap between visible space and its ctional referent (what weinfer or imagine from our culturally in ected reading of proxemics) It is thenpossible to explore the rhizomatic potential of interculturalismmdashits ability to makemultiple connections and disconnections between cultural spacesmdashand to createrepresentations that are unbounded and open and potentially resistant to im-perialist forms of closure

The body in intercultural theatre is equally subject to multiple inscriptionsproducing an unstable signi er rather than a totalized identity It is a site of con-vergence for contesting discourses even though it may be marked with the dis-tinctive signs of a particular culture Postcolonial theory aims to foreground theways in which power is inscribed on and negotiated through the body Suchtheory continually questions what is spoken through the body how its languagesoperate and in the service of whose vested interests It maintains that the bodyis not only a site of knowledgepower but also a site of resistance which inElizabeth Groszrsquos words ldquoexerts a recalcitrance and always entails the possibilityof counterstrategic re-inscription [because] it is capable of being self-marked self-represented in alternative waysrdquo (199064) We need then to look at how resis-tance is expressed in relation to performative bodies how those bodies encodedifference and speci city and how they can prevent the universalizing impulseof transculturalism

As categories that are constructed through visible differences race and genderhave particular signi cance in this respect it is important to note however thatthese are complex and even unstable categories being historically conditionedrather than determined solely by biology One of the problems intercultural the-atre often faces is how to avoid essentialist constructions of race and gender whilestill accounting for the irreducible speci city of certain bodies and body behav-iors A common response is to elevate particular roles in source texts to the level ofarchetypes that can then be played by any skilled performer Peter Brookrsquos Ma-habharata has been accused of this approach (Dasgupta 1991 Bharucha 199368ndash87) This process of distillation strips the readable signs of culture from the sourcetext rather than provoke the audience to examine the tensions between partici-pating cultures There is no dialogic interaction instead a speci c body is sub-merged in the archetypal role according to the aesthetic principles of the projectPostcolonial theory warns against the dehistoricizing effects of such distillationprocesses It focuses on analyzing the gap between the material body and what itis supposed to represent This involves examining movement as well as bodily ap-

48 LoGilbert

pearance since as Pavis notes ldquoactors simultaneously reveal the culture of thecommunity where they have trained and where they live and the bodily tech-nique they have acquiredrdquo (19963) Rather than working from principles of ab-straction an intercultural practice informed by postcolonialism would play upcultural differences without attempting to deny the effects of the political econ-omy that underpins the project The hybrid counter-energies that result from theclash between the symbolic space and the culturally inscribed body can then pro-duce ldquoa radical heterogeneity discontinuity [and] the perpetual revolutionof formrdquo(Young 199525)

A politicized reading of costume is similarly necessary to the formulation of amore comprehensive theory about intercultural performance It seems that partof the attraction of interculturalism has to do with the fantasy of stepping intoldquonativerdquo costume in a process of cultural transvestism that does anything butsubvert power hierarchies As Gail Ching-Liang Low argues the fantasy of cross-cultural dressing identi es clothes as a ldquolsquobadge and advertisementrsquo of [the domi-nant culturersquos] ability to cross the class and cultural gaprdquo hence cultural transvestismoffers ldquothe promise of lsquotransgressiversquo pleasure without the penalties of actualchangerdquo (198992ndash93) If such transvestism could be used to draw attention tothe dif culties that inhere in crossing cultural gaps costume would then becomeanother possible site of resistant inscription rather than a conduit for the one-waycultural transfer that currently characterizes certain forms of interculturalismThisis where postcolonial theories about mimicry masquerade and self-consciousconstructions of subjectivity can come into play because they treat costume as amalleable and even ambiguous signi er rather than a transparent sign of particulargender racial social and national identities

Degrees of power and privilege are also embedded in the framing mechanismsthrough which particular elements of a performance are presented to its audi-ence(s) Typically intercultural theatre positions the performance traditions andoractual bodies of ldquootherrdquo cultures as focal points of the Western viewerrsquos specularconsumption and it is through this kind of untroubled and desiring gaze thatrei ed images of cultural difference are validated and circulated on the ldquointer-nationalrdquo arts market If intercultural theatre means to address the potential in-equities involved in Western appropriations of other cultural traditions then itsadherents must conceive of a theatre that somehow engages with its own estab-lished ldquolookingrdquo relations Interventionary frameworks and other metatheatricaldevicesmdashthese might range from direct audience address to self-conscious roleplaying to forum discussionmdashcan be used to problematize the implicitly im-perialist object-relations model of cross-cultural spectatorship Within the self-re exive theatre that we envision the hybridizing of cultural fragments wouldbe far from seamless cultural tensions would not be hidden nor difference nat-uralized

Conclusion

We have attempted to map the eld of cross-cultural theatre as a way of think-ing through its complexities and contradictions Despite our efforts to integratea diverse range of theories and practices into a ldquobig-picturerdquo account of the eldwe are not advocating a totalizing theory of cultural exchange Rather our dis-cussion is designed to enable a strategic way of rethinking the local and context-speci c through the global and vice versa This sort of matrixed model we wouldargue proffers a more nuanced method of actualizing and analyzing the range ofwork that is increasingly becoming a globalized praxis

Our all too brief survey of potential sites of intervention in the practice andinterpretation of intercultural theatre outlines some of the ways in which the

Cross-Cultural Theatre Praxis 49

mise-en-scene can be politicized and the notion of cultural hegemony relativizedIn an age where cultural boundaries are continually traversed and identities arebecoming increasingly hybridized an intercultural theatre practice informed bypostcolonial theory can potentially function as a site where this intersecting ofcultures is both re ected and critiqued Such a practice would align with (thoughnot necessarily replicate) Gomez-Penarsquos formulation of ldquoborder artrdquo in whichthe performerrsquos job is ldquoto trespass bridge interconnect reinterpret remap andrede nerdquo the limits of culture (199612) It is vital that intercultural theatrersquospotential to cross cultures is not co-opted and neutralized by the ldquoweakerrdquo formsof postmodernism which tend to result in an abstract depoliticized and ahis-torical notion of ldquodifferencerdquo or in effect a masked ldquoindifferencerdquo In this re-spect Homi Bhabharsquos clari cation of postcolonial hybridity as based on anagonistic relationship rather than a seamless fusion offers a workable model foran ethics as well as an aesthetics of cross-cultural engagement

Hybrid hyphenations emphasise the incommensurable elements [] as thebasis of cultural identi cations What is at issue is the performative natureof differential identities the regulation and negotiation of those spaces thatare continually contingently ldquoopening outrdquo remaking the boundariesexposing the limits of any claim to a singular or autonomous sign of dif-ferencemdashbe it class gender or race Such assignations of social differ-encesmdashwhere difference is neither One nor the Other but something elsebesides in-betweenmdash nd their agency in [] an interstitial future thatemerges in between the claims of the past and the needs of the present(1994219)

The kind of hyphenated hybridity that Bhabha outlines is already within theconceptual reach of interculturalism It is now time for a more sustained andsystematic engagement with the politics of its production

Notes

1 ldquoAgencyrdquo refers here to the potential to act or perform an action autonomously it registersdegrees of power and knowledge combined since to act autonomously is to understand theideological systems in which one is imbricated

2 For an extended discussion of multiculturalism in Canada Australia and the United Statessee Gunew (199351ndash65)

3 See Bennett (1996144ndash47) for examples of small ldquomrdquo multicultural theatre in which blind-cast productions of Shakespearersquos The Tempest unwittingly reproduced dominant culturalvalues

4 Guillermo Gomez-Pena critiques a similar model of intercultural encounter in his conceptof ldquocorporaterdquo or ldquotransnationalrdquo multiculturalism which he argues characterizes manybusiness and media conglomeratesrsquo current interest in difference Such difference performsthe ldquopassive roles of glossy images and exotic backgroundrdquo and real diversity is ldquo attenedand equalized by high production valuesrdquo (200112)

5 Examples of big ldquoMrdquo multicultural theatre include various projects done by El Teatro Cam-pesino (US) Talawa (Britain) Doppio Teatro and Urban Theatre Projects (Australia) andCahoots Theatre Projects (Canada) Of course there have been numerous projects (espe-cially in non-Western countries) that t within our de nition of multicultural theatre al-though the speci c practitioners involved may not identify their work in this way Examplesinclude projects by Five Arts Centre (Malaysia) William Kentridge and the HandspringPuppet Company (South Africa) Rustom Bharucha (India) and Gomez-Pena (USAMexico)

6 Our identi cation of ghetto and migrant theatres is in uenced by Richard Fotheringhamrsquoswork ([1987] 1992197ndash98)

7 For further explication of community theatre see Baz Kershaw (1992)

50 LoGilbert

8 For some time postcolonial theatre has been well theorized as a conceptual category albeita contested one however in-depth engagement with postcolonialism has been conspicu-ously absent from discussions of cross-cultural performance work in journals such as TDRSimilarly Patrice Pavisrsquos introduction to The Intercultural Performance Reader (1996) virtuallydismisses the eld of postcolonial theatre even though some of the bookrsquos contents clearly t within this grouping

9 Wole Soyinka Derek Walcott and Girish Karnad are the most prominent of a very largeand diverse group of dramatists who might be catagorized as ldquopostcolonialrdquo Well-knownindigenous theatre groups in countries permanently colonized by European powers includeKooemba Jdarra (Australia) Taki Rua Productions (New Zealand) Spiderwoman (USA) andNative Earth Performing Arts (Canada) See Gilbert and Tompkins (1996) for an extendedaccount of the eld

10 See the introduction to Christopher Balmersquos book Decolonizing the Stage Theatrical Syncre-tism and Post-Colonial Drama (1999) for an extended history of the conceptual category ofsyncretic theatre Balme has been the key theorist of this form of cross-cultural performancefor several years though he initially assessed its overarching function as cultural rapproche-ment rather than decolonization andor resistance

11 His notable theatre projects include Tooth of Crime (1973) Mother Courage (1975) The Pro-metheus Project (1983ndash85) and Three Sisters (1995ndash97)

12 The Tales from South Asia project as documented by Sharon Grady and Phillip Zarilli (1994)exhibits most of the features of the collaborative model The stated aims of the projectrsquosinitiators were to

develop a strategy of presentation and representation which engages an audienceandor students in ldquodifferencerdquo without stereotyping essentializing romanticizingthe ldquoother and keeping onersquos audience aware of contestation as a social realityrdquo(Grady and Zarilli 1994169)

13 Similar celebratory responses can be found in Williams (1992) and Wilshire and Wilshire(1989)

14 This position has been described elsewhere as ldquohappy hybridityrdquo (see Lo 2000)15 Schechnerrsquos 1989 article ldquoIntercultural Themesrdquo maps his thinking on the subject up to

the end of the 1980s see his 1996 interview with Pavis for a more recent account16 On a similar note Craig Latrell recently argued for a more complex reading of intercultural

exchange beyond the ldquovictim-victimizer narrativerdquo The non-Western cultures should notbe perceived as passive receivers of Western ideas but rather active manipulators of suchin uences (200045ndash46) His analysis of the speci city of theatrical agency is howeverweakened by the lack of attention to historical speci city and particularly the impact ofcolonialism in Singapore and Indonesia

17 For detailed explanation see Pavis (19924ndash20)18 Pavis adheres to the idea of turning the hourglass over for other perspectives but unlike

his earlier theorization which advocated the reversal as a way for the source culture tomonitor its own process of exchange the latest discussion appears to consolidate the primacyof the dominant culture

At the end of the process when spectators feel themselves buried alive under thesand of signs and symbols they have no other salvation than to give up and turn thehourglass upside down Then the perspective inverts and one must reverse andrelativize the sediments accumulated in the receiving culture and judge them fromthe point of view of alterity and relativity (199618)

19 For a fuller account of various modes of hybridity see Lo (2000152ndash55)20 See Gilbert (199813ndash25) for a more detailed discussion of the ways in which postcolonial

theory can be used to interpret ideological aspects of performance

References

Ambush Benny Sato1989 ldquoPluralism to the Bonerdquo American Theatre 615

Cross-Cultural Theatre Praxis 51

Ang Ien and John Stratton1994 ldquoMulticultural Imagined Communities Cultural Difference and National Iden-

tity in Australia and the USArdquo Continuum The Australian Journal of Media andCulture 8 2124ndash58

Ashcroft Bill Gareth Grif ths and Helen Tif n eds1995 The Post-Colonial Studies Reader London Routledge

Balme Christopher1999 Decolonizing the Stage Theatrical Syncretism and Post-Colonial Drama Oxford Ox-

ford University Press

Barba Eugenio1996 ldquoEurasian Theatrerdquo In The Intercultural Performance Reader edited by Patrice Pav-

ice 217ndash22 London Routledge

Bennett Susan1996 Performing Nostalgia Shifting Shakespeare and the ContemporaryPast LondonRout-

ledge

Bhabha Homi1994 The Location of Culture London Routledge

Bharucha Rustom1993 Theatre and the World Performance and the Politics of Culture London Routledge2000 The Politics of Cultural Practice Thinking through Theatre in an Age of Globalisation

London Athlone Press

Brandon James1990 ldquoContemporary Japanese Theatre Interculturalism and Intraculturalismrdquo In The

Dramatic Touch of Difference Theatre Own and Foreign edited by Erika Fischer-Lichte Michael Gissenwehrer and Josephine Riley 89ndash97 Tubingen Narr

Brown John Russell1998 ldquoTheatrical Pillage in Asia Redirecting the Intercultural Traf crdquo New Theatre

Quarterly 14 539ndash19

Carlson Marvin1990 ldquoPeter Brookrsquos The Mahabharata and Ariane Mnouchkinersquos LrsquoIndiade as Ex-

amples of Contemporary Cross-cultural Theatrerdquo In The Dramatic Touch of Dif-ference Theatre Own and Foreign edited by Erika Fischer-Lichte Michael Gissen-wehrer and Josephine Riley 49ndash56 Tubingen Narr

Carter David1986 ldquoThe Natives Are Getting Restless Nationalism Multiculturalism and Migrant

Writingrdquo Island Magazine 25263ndash8

Chin Daryl1991 ldquoInterculturalism Postmodernism Pluralismrdquo In Interculturalism and Performance

Writings from PAJ edited by Bonnie Marranca and Gautam Dasgupta 83ndash95New York PAJ Publications

Clifford James1994 ldquoDiasporasrdquo Cultural Anthropology 9 3 302ndash38

Dasgupta Gautam1991 ldquoThe Mahabharata Peter Brookrsquos Orientalismrdquo In Interculturalism and Perfor-

mance Writings from PAJ edited by Bonnie Marranca and Gautam Dasgupta 75ndash82 New York PAJ Publications

De Reuck Jenny2000 ldquolsquoThe mirror shattered into tiny piecesrsquo Reading Gender and Culture in the

Japan Foundation Asia Centrersquos LEARrdquo Intersections Online Asian Studies Journal3 6 httpwwwsshemurdocheduauintersectionsissue3jenny3html (12January 2001)

Cross-Cultural Theatre Praxis 35

workers are often employed to facilitate the work and the performances are typ-ically presented back to the community as well as to ldquooutsidersrdquo Cross-culturalnegotiations therefore occur at a number of levels in this type of theatre

Postcolonial Theatre

While ldquopostcolonial theatrerdquo has sometimes been used as a portmanteau de-scriptor for performance work expressing any kind of resistance politics particu-larly concerning race class andor gender oppression the term more often refersto a range of theatre texts and practices that have emerged from cultures subjectedto Western imperialism8 In its more narrowly focused de nition postcolonialtheatre is a geopolitical category designating both a historical and a discursiverelation to imperialism whether that phenomenon is treated critically or ambi-valently (see Gilbert and Tompkins 19962ndash7) The discursive axis of postcolonialtheatremdashthat it engages with imperialism in either explicit or implicit waysmdashmoves away from concepts of a naotildeve teleological sequence in which postcolo-nialism merely supersedes colonialism Hence speci c theatre practices aredeemed postcolonial not simply because of their cultural origins but also becauseof their textual and performative features While the best known postcolonialtheatre derives from indigenous groups in areas formerly colonized by Europeanandor American cultures some settler theatre in such regions is included (ifsometimes contentiously) in this category9

Most postcolonial theatre is driven by a political imperative to interrogate thecultural hegemony that underlies imperial systems of governance education so-cial and economic organization and representation Its discourses of resistancespeak primarily to the colonizing projects of Western imperial centers andor tothe neocolonial pressures of localregional postindependence regimes Resistanceis expressed in genres ranging from realism agitprop and forum theatre to po-litical satires and allegories where criticism of various ldquosensitiverdquo issues may beldquomutedrdquo to avoid the censorship of a politically repressive government or rulingclass In this context resistance is not conceptualized as pure or simply thereavailable in texts or social practices rather it is grounded in multiple and some-times contradictory structures never easily located because it is partial incom-plete ambiguous and often complicit in the apparatus it seeks to transgress Thenotion of resistance as unstable and potentially ambivalent strengthens the casefor the inclusion of some settler theatre in the postcolonial category since asStephen Slemon maintains postcolonialism is concerned with ldquothe project ofarticulating the formsmdashand modes and tropes and guresmdashof anti-colonial tex-tual resistance wherever they occur and in all their guisesrdquo (199035)

Postcolonial theatre usually involves cross-cultural negotiation at the drama-turgical and aesthetic levels because of the historical contact between culturesCross-cultural processes may also be an important part of the working practicesespecially in regions with bicultural or multicultural populations While not allpostcolonial theatre is necessarily cross-cultural it frequently assumes some kindof interpretive encounter between differently empowered cultural groups Interms of reception audiences for postcolonial theatre are complex typically vary-ing across geographical regions while being differentially in uenced by class andrace For instance Aboriginal theatre in Australia plays primarily to the dominantldquowhiterdquo culture while Wole Soyinkarsquos work nds its main audience among theeducated classes of Nigerian society as well as among cosmopolitan groups in-ternationally

Postcolonial theatre has been discussed under two main categories syncretictheatre and nonsyncretic theatre Syncretic theatre integrates performance elements

36 LoGilbert

of different cultures into a form that aims to retain the cultural integrity of thespeci c materials used while forging new texts and theatre practices10 This in-tegrative process tends to highlight rather than disguise shifts in the meaningfunction and value of cultural fragments as they are moved from their traditionalcontexts In postcolonial societies syncretic theatre generally involves the incor-poration of indigenous material into a Western dramaturgical framework whichis itself modi ed by the fusion process Christopher Balme argues that such syn-cretism activates a ldquocultural and aesthetic semiotic recoding that ultimately ques-tions the basis of normative Western dramardquo this creative endeavor is to bedistinguished from ldquotheatrical exoticismrdquo in which ldquoindigenous cultural texts arearbitrarily recoded and semanticised in a Western aesthetic and ideological framerdquowhere they tend to signify mere alterity (19994ndash5) Well-known examples ofsyncretic postcolonial theatre include works by Sistren Theatre Collective andDerek Walcott in the Caribbean Girish Karnad in India and Wole Soyinka andFemi Oso san in Nigeria A signi cant number of Aboriginal Maori and nativeNorth American plays also use syncretic performance strategies as part of theirlarger agenda of cultural recuperation

Nonsyncretic theatre by de nition does not merge disparate cultural forms butrather uses imposed imperial genresaesthetics or less often wholly indigenousones to voice postcolonial concerns For instance Western-style realism has beenwidely used to stage anticolonial narratives emanating from both indigenous andsettler communities Among the latter Australiarsquos Louis Nowra and CanadarsquosSharon Pollock gure as high-pro le playwrights whose work could be charac-terized as postcolonial but not syncretic The distinction between syncretic andnonsyncretic theatre is more dif cult to maintain in cases such as indigenousperformances of Shakespearian texts where European characters are enacted byldquoblackrdquo or ldquocoloredrdquo actors instituting tension between the performance at issueand the tradition that it transgresses It could be argued here that syncretisminheres in the juxtaposition of the performersrsquo bodies (as culturally coded sign-systems) to scripts ineluctably embedded with markers of a different culture Thisexample suggests that postcolonial theatre is best conceptualized as exhibitingvarying degrees of syncretism rather than falling neatly into opposing categories

Intercultural Theatre

Whereas multicultural theatre is often the effect of state-determined culturalmanagement andor a grassroots response to the ldquolived realityrdquo of cultural plu-ralism and postcolonial theatre is produced as part of (and in opposition to) ahistorical process of imperialism and neoimperialism intercultural theatre is char-acterized as a ldquovoluntarist intervention circumscribed by the agencies of the stateand the marketrdquo (Bharucha 200033) Multicultural theatre functions within astatist framework premised on ideals of citizenship and the management of cul-turalethnic difference while intercultural theatre and to a certain extent post-colonial theatre have more latitude to explore and critique alternative formsof citizenship and identity across and beyond national boundaries although thesubjectivities they produce are not wholly free of state mediation Put simplyintercultural theatre is a hybrid derived from an intentional encounter betweencultures and performing traditions It is primarily a Western-based tradition witha lineage in modernist experimentation through the work of Tairov MeyerholdBrecht Artaud and Grotowski More recently intercultural theatre has beenassociated with the works of Richard Schechner Peter Brook Eugenio BarbaAriane Mnouchkine Robert Wilson Tadashi Suzuki and Ong Keng Sen Evenwhen intercultural exchanges take place within the ldquonon-Westrdquo they are often

Cross-Cultural Theatre Praxis 37

mediated through Western culture andor economics Ongrsquos ldquoPan-Asianrdquo spec-taculars LEAR (1997) and Desdemona (1999) are cases in point (see De Reuck2000 and Grehan 2000)

One only has to refer to Pavisrsquos The Intercultural Performance Reader (1996) toappreciate the range of approaches encompassed by the term ldquointerculturalismrdquoand the extent to which it evades any neat de nition While attempting to mapdevelopments in the eld The Reader documents diverse positions that fore-ground interculturalism as a contested site for both theory and practice Despitethis apparent diversity there is evidence pointing to interculturalism as a Westernvision of exchange Pavis himself acknowledges this bias explaining that the col-lection was ldquolargely produced by and aimed at a European and Anglo-Americanreadershiprdquo (199625) The privileging of the West is evident in the ways in whichthe essays are grouped within the book for instance the juxtapositioning of PartII titled ldquoIntercultural Performance from the Western Point of Viewrdquo with PartIII ldquoIntercultural Performance from Another Point of Viewrdquo replicates the ldquoWestand the restrdquo binary paradigm and reveals a problematic ideological aporia Putdifferently interculturalism as it has been theorized and documented thus far isalready overdetermined by the West

Although Pavis echoing Erika Fischer-Lichte claims that it is too soon topropose a global theory of interculturalism (19961) there already exists a glob-alizing practice that demands further political and ethical interrogationSimilarlyJulie Holledge and Joanne Tompkins (2000) contend that intercultural theatre istoo varied and process-based to warrant a general theory They opt instead for asite-speci c study of intercultural projects But this reluctance to engage with theldquobig picturerdquo arguably runs the risk of consolidating the ideological premises ofinterculturalism as a Western-dominated form of knowledge production By priv-ileging content speci city the false dichotomy between praxis and theory is main-tained this also has the effect of relegating issues of ethics to the particular andthe ldquoone off rdquo rather than relating these to larger issues of knowledge formationwithin institutional national and global contexts

Our study of a range of intercultural practice and the theoretical discussion ithas generated suggests that the eld can be loosely divided into three subcate-gories

Transcultural theatre aims to transcend culture-speci c codi cation in order toreach a more universal human condition Transcultural directors are interested inparticularities and traditions only insofar as they enable the directors to identifyaspects of commonality rather than difference (Pavis 19966) There are manyvariations to this search for the universal In the case of Peter Brook transcen-dence of the particular is a necessary part of the mythic quest for origins andWestern theatrersquos supposed loss of ldquopurityrdquo This return to sources and the reap-propriation of primitive languages is a metaphysical quest for a truth that holdseverywhere and at any time irrespective of historical or cultural differences InOrghast (1970) for instance Brook attempted to create an original tonal languageby tapping into a primeval consciousness Eugenio Barbarsquos work in ISTA (Inter-national School of Theatre Anthropology) is another form of transculturaltheatrePavis distinguishes Barbarsquos work as ldquopreculturalrdquo it does not aim to identify thecommon origins of cultures in Brookrsquos way but rather seeks what is common toldquoEasternrdquo and ldquoWesternrdquo theatre practitioners before they become individualizedor ldquoacculturatedrdquo in particular traditions and techniques of performance (19967)According to Barba the goal is to compare the work methods of both Easternand Western theatre and ldquoto reach down into a common technical substratumrdquowhich is ldquothe domain of pre-expressivity [] At this pre-expressive level theprinciples are the same even though they nurture the enormous expressive dif-

38 LoGilbert

ferences which exist between one tradition and another one actor and anotherrdquo(1996220) Barba stresses that these principles are analogous to one another ratherthan homologous nevertheless his search for an essence beyond socialization ischaracteristic of the desire to transcend social and cultural ldquotrappingsrdquo in a movetoward a ldquopurerrdquo mode of communication and theatrical presence

Intracultural theatre is Rustom Bharucharsquos term to denote cultural encountersbetween and across speci c communities and regions within the nation-stateMore speci cally in relation to his own ldquointraculturalrdquo work Bharucha pointsto internal diversity within the boundaries of a particular region or nation Thissense of the intracultural has similarities to the multicultural

insofar as they assume either the interaction or the coexistence of regionaland local cultures within the larger framework of the nation-state How-ever while the ldquointrardquo prioritizes the interactivity and translation of di-verse cultures the ldquomultirdquo upholds a notion of cohesiveness (Bharucha20009)

In this way intracultural theatre serves a critical function in challenging ldquoorgan-icist notions of culture by highlighting the deeply fragmented and divided society[] that multicultural rhetoric of the state refuses to acknowledgerdquo (Bharucha20009)

Extracultural theatre refers to theatre exchanges that are conducted along a West-East and North-South axis The converse of intraculturalism this form of inter-culturalism goes back to the modernist pioneers who looked to the non-West torejuvenate Western art Schechner is the best-known contemporary exponent ofthis practice his experimental productions dating back to the late 1960s with thestaging of a West Irian birth ritual in Dionysus in 69 (1968) and subsequentlydeveloping through numerous theatre projects and theoretical essays in the eld11

While extracultural theatre can encompass some forms of transcultural theatre asin Brookrsquos Mahabharata (1985) it also includes intercultural experiments whichdo not aim to relativize or transcend cultural differences but rather to celebrateand even interrogate such differences as a source of cultural empowerment andaesthetic richness As a category of analysis extracultural theatre always begsquestions about the power dynamics inherent in the economic and political lo-cation of the participating cultures even if such questions are evaded in accountsof actual practice

The remainder of this essay will focus primarily on this extracultural form ofintercultural theatre

Modes of Conducting Intercultural Theatre

The range of working methods employed in intercultural theatre can generallybe positioned along a continuum One pole of the continuum is characterizedby a collaborative mode of exchange while the opposite pole is characterized asimperialistic Most intercultural theatre occurs somewhere between these twoextremes and speci c projects may shift along the continuum depending on thephase of cultural production It is vital that the continuum is conceived in pro-cessual rather than xed terms in order to foreground intercultural exchange asa dynamic process rather than a static transaction

Diagram 2 Continuum ofIntercultural Modes

Cross-Cultural Theatre Praxis 39

Collaborative

Intercultural exchange at this end of the continuum tends to emphasize theprocesses and politics of exchange rather than the theatrical product per se Thisform of theatre-making places great importance on cultural negotiations at alllevels from the highly personal and individualistic to the ldquosuperstructuralrdquo andinstitutional Collaborative interculturalism is often community-generated ratherthan market andor state-driven There is less of a focus on maintaining theldquopurityrdquo of the various cultures for exotic display The exchange process is oftenmarked by tension and incommensurability While there is a general desire tomaintain equitable power relations between partners the aim is not to producea harmonious experience of theatre-making but rather to explore the fullness ofcultural exchange in all its contradictions and convergences for all parties Thetheatre product may similarly resist forced synthesis revealing instead both thepositive and negative aspects of the encounter12 Ferdinand Ortizrsquos concept oftransculturation (not to be confused with transculturalism) offers a useful way ofanalyzing collaborative interculturalism by going beyond a model of easy fusionto account for both acquisition and loss at the same time In the transculturationprocess elements of each system of culture are lost in the creation of a thirdsystem Cultural encounter of this kind can be potentially counterhegemonic itallows minor cultures to act on dominant ones rather than merely submit tocultural loss in the transaction (see Taylor 199162ndash63)

Imperialistic

Intercultural exchange at this end of the continuum is often driven by a senseof Western culture as bankrupt and in need of invigoration from the non-WestThe resulting theatre tends to tap into ldquoOtherrdquo cultural traditions that are per-ceived as ldquoauthenticrdquo and uncontaminated by (Western) modernity Interculturalpractice in this mode is largely an aesthetic response to cultural diversity Thereis a discernible difference in agency between partners such inequity is oftenhistorically based and may continue in the present through economic politicaland technological dominance This form of theatre tends to be product-orientedand usually produced for the dominant culturersquos consumption Performances areoften highly spectacular with emphasis placed on the aesthetic and formal qualitiesof the mise-en-scene The intercultural work of practitioners such as ArianeMnouchkine has been described as imperialist though Mnouchkine refutes thischarge preferring to see her appropriations of Asian performing traditions as aform of indebtedness and ldquohomagerdquo Maria Shevtsova defends this position byasserting that Mnouchkine does not purport to use the ldquooriginalrdquo art form andthat her ldquoborrowingrdquo practices should be understood within the logic of herWestern system of aestheticism (1997102)

Responses to Interculturalism

Given the range of intercultural modalities it is not surprising that criticaltheoretical responses are similarly varied Generally speaking most commentatorshave analyzed interculturalism as practice their responses ranging from the ce-lebratory to the highly critical Schechnerrsquos earlier writings about interculturalpractice exemplify many aspects of the celebratory stance13 Schechner refers tothe intercultural experimentations in the US from the 1950s to the mid rsquo70s asa ldquogolden age of innocencerdquo

People didnrsquot question too much whether or not this interculturalism []was a continuation of colonialism a further exploitation of other cultures

40 LoGilbert

There was something simply celebratory about discovering how diversethe world was how many performance genres there were and how wecould enrich our own experience by borrowing stealing exchanging(198219)

This neoliberal embrace of cultural difference celebrates the possibilities of cul-tural fusion and the construction of radical subjectivities beyond national andethnic boundaries Intercultural practice in this sense is deeply imbricated inglobalization and the perceived deterritorialization of social cultural and politicalboundaries for those in the developed world even if this is not often acknowl-edged by the critics and practitioners themselves14 It should be noted thatSchechnerrsquos position has shifted signi cantly since then15 over the last decade inparticular his critical work shows less of a tendency to idealize cross-culturalexchange and a keener awareness of power relations He also acknowledges the

misunderstandings broken languages and failed transactions that occurwhen and where cultures collide overlap or pull away from each otherThese are seen not as obstacles to be overcome but as fertile rifts or erup-tions full of creative potential (19913)

At the other end of the scale is the ethical critique of intercultural practice asinvasive globalization Daryl Chin argues that

Interculturalism hinges on the questions of autonomy and empowermentTo deploy elements from the symbol system of another culture is a verydelicate enterprise In its crudest terms the question is when does thatusage act as cultural imperialism Forcing elements from disparate culturestogether does not seem to be a solution that makes much sense aestheti-cally ethically or philosophically What does that prove that the knowl-edge of other cultures exists That information about other cultures nowis readily available (199194)

For Bharucha likewise interculturalism cannot be separated from a larger his-tory of colonialism and orientalism (see also Dasgupta 1991) He contends thatinterculturalism is an inherently ethnocentric practice which seeks to synthesizecultural difference rather than respect its individual histories

The problem arises [] when the preoccupation with the ldquoself rdquo over-powers the representation of ldquootherrdquo cultures [and] when the Other isnot another but the projection of onersquos ego Then all one has is a glori -cation of the self and a co-option of other cultures in the name of repre-sentation (199328)

John Russell Brown adds

Exchange borrowing trade or looting across major frontiers diminishesany theatre because it transgresses its inherited reliance on the societyfrom which the drama takes its life and for which it was intended to beperformed [] However worthily it is intended intercultural theatricalexchange is in fact a form of pillage and the result is fancy-dress pre-tence or at best the creation of a small zoo in which no creature has itsfull life (199814)

Cross-Cultural Theatre Praxis 41

Such moral critiques while absolutely essential to the politicizing of intercul-turalism risk instigating a kind of paralysis insofar as they suggest that virtuallyno form of theatrical exchange can be ethical16 This position is clearly untenablefor a number of practitioners especially those whose art is derived from (andaims to explore) experiences of cultural hybridity For instance performanceartisttheorist Guillermo Gomez-Pena a self-confessed ldquochild of crisis and cul-tural syncretismrdquo (199338) sees his own work (and the desirable future of Amer-ican theatre) as inevitably pluralistic unavoidably intercultural But he is alsoacutely aware of the implications of intercultural work noting that it is ldquofunda-mental to address relationships of power and assumptions about privilege amongthe participating artists communities and countriesrdquo in order to develop ethicalmodels of theatrical exchange (19969) To facilitate this Gomez-Pena calls for amuch more rigorous public debate about cultural issues in general about equityand diversity about de nitions of ldquomulti- inter- intra- and cross-culturalrdquoabout which encounters between cultures are ldquosymmetrical and desirable andwhich are more reactionaryrdquo (199357) In projects such as Temple of Confessions(1994) A Seminar on Museum Race Relations (1995) and Mexterminator Project(1999)mdashdeliberately provocative works that are at times even ldquounethicalrdquomdashGomez-Pena relentlessly stages aspects of this debate always avoiding de nitiveanswers

Theoretical Models of Interculturalism

While many critics have posed theoretical challenges to the intercultural en-terprise there have been surprisingly few attempts to formulate a comprehensivemodel of intercultural exchange Marvin Carlson has offered a scale consisting ofseven categories of cross-cultural in uence based on ldquopossible relationships be-tween the culturally familiar and the culturally foreignrdquo (199050) While usefulfor differentiating types of projects this scale does not move beyond an essentiallytaxonomic analysis of the eld Fischer-Lichte takes a different tack focusingspeci cally on the adaptation process which she insists follows a model of ldquopro-ductive receptionrdquo rather than one of translation (1997154ndash55) Productive re-ception emphasizes aspects of a performance caused or in uenced by receptionand is aligned in Fischer-Lichtersquos work with the project of revitalizing tired the-atrical practices though she does not elaborate on the precise dynamics involved

Pavis has thus far been the only critic able to sustain a comprehensive modelof intercultural exchange His hourglass model depicts in its upper bowl theforeign or source culture ldquowhich is more or less codi ed and solidi ed in diverseanthropological sociocultural or artistic modelizationsrdquo (19924) This is repre-sented by lters 1 and 2 in the diagram below The ldquograins of culturerdquo trickledown to the lower bowl and are rearranged in the process The lters 3 through11 put in place by the target culture and the observer largely determine the nalformation of the grains17 The model focuses on ldquothe intercultural transfer be-tween source and target culturerdquo as a way of depicting the relativity of the notionof culture and the complicated relationship between partners in the exchange(19925)

Critique of the Hourglass Model

In practice Pavisrsquos hourglass is an accurate model of most intercultural workof the extracultural kind But the modelrsquos strength is also its weakness it cannotaccount for alternative and more collaborative forms of intercultural exchangeDespite Pavisrsquos wariness of a translationcommunication model of intercultural-ism his elaboration of the process of cultural transfer reveals its dependence on

42 LoGilbert

translation theory The main problem with this model is that it assumes a one-way cultural ow based on a hierarchy of privilege even though Pavis attemptsto relativize the power relations by claiming that the hourglass can be turnedupside-down ldquoas soon as the users of a foreign culture ask themselves how theycan communicate their own culture to another target culturerdquo (19925) Thishowever assumes that there is a ldquolevel-playing eldrdquo between the partners in theexchange and does not account for the fact that the bene ts of globalization andthe permeability of cultures and political systems are accessed differentially fordifferent communities and nations

A translation model of interculturalism therefore runs the risk of reproducingstrategies of containment As Tejaswine Niranjana points out

By employing certain modes of representing the othermdashwhich it therebyalso brings into beingmdashtranslation reinforces hegemonic versions of thecolonized helping them acquire the status of what Edward Said calls rep-resentations or objects without history (19923)

Diagram 3 Pavisrsquos hour-glass Model of InterculturalTheatre

Cross-Cultural Theatre Praxis 43

Pavis is not unaware of this danger

If [the hourglass] is only a mill it will blend the source culture destroy itsevery speci city and drop into the lower bowl an inert and deformed sub-stance which will have lost its original modeling without being moldedinto that of the target culture If it is only a funnel it will indiscriminatelyabsorb the initial substance without reshaping it through the series of l-ters or leaving any trace of the original matter (19925)

Having said this however Pavis is unable to account for interculturalism as aprocess of political negotiation For example he argues that the mise-en-sceneas the central site of interculturalism functions as a ldquokind of reglage (lsquo ne-tuningrsquo)rdquo which mediates between different contexts cultural backgrounds andtraditions (19926) ldquoFine-tuningrdquo serves to smooth over differences in ways thatbecome intelligible for the target culture Similarly ldquoreception-adaptersrdquo ( lter8) ll the lacunae in the transfer of cultural content and dissipate the tensions ofincommensurability in order to create a ldquoreadablerdquo text for the target culture

The teleology of the hourglass model ultimately reduces interculturalexchangeto an alimentary process According to this logic the body belongs to the targetculture while the source culture becomes the food which must be digested andassimilated As Pavis notes only the grains that are ldquosuf ciently nerdquo will ldquo owthrough [the hourglass neck] without any troublerdquo (19924) His model cannotaccount for blockage collisions and retroaction as sites of either intervention orresistance In the nal analysis intercultural exchange according to the hourglassmodel is a reductive process which distills cultural difference into essences thatcan be readily absorbed by the target culture While Pavis does acknowledge thein uence of the social context ( lters 10B and 10C) the temporally bound meta-phor of the hourglass suggests that sociohistorical factors rather than in ectingthe entire intercultural process simply constitute the nal lter before the the-atrical product is consumed by the target culture In short the hourglass modelis premised on aesthetics rather than on politics

Pavis does not stray far from this model in his more recent theorization of the eld (1996) proffering instead a more careful schematization of different formsand modes of intercultural practice Although he does acknowledge the proble-matics of power inequities between partners in the exchange noting that ldquotherecan be no sense in which Asian perspectives are always reversible and symmetricalwith those of the Westmdashas a purely functionalist use of the hourglass turnedover and over ad in nitum might lead us naively to believerdquo (19962) there islittle sense that he has revised the translation principles underlying his model18

Pavis takes account of some of the recent ethical critiques of interculturalismandis particularly wary of it being absorbed into a postmodernist form of culturalrelativism Although he claims that ldquoexchange implies a theory and an ethics ofalterityrdquo (199611) he does not foreground the ethical dimension in any discern-ible way Signi cantly Pavis claims that the kind of intercultural practice thatholds the most potential for ldquoresistance against standardization against the Eu-ropeanization of super-productionsrdquo is the ldquointer-corporeal work in which anactor confronts hisher technique and professional identity with those of theothersrdquo (1996150) By locating the potential for agency at this microscopic levelof actor training Pavis reveals the limitations of the hourglass model as an effectivetemplate for a politicized theorization of the entire eld of interculturalism

Matrixing Interculturalism and Postcolonialism

One way of approaching the problems raised by Pavisrsquos model of interculturaltheatre is to consider its mechanisms through the lens of postcolonial theory

44 LoGilbert

Despite their shared concern with the phenomenon of cultural encounter the-ories of interculturalism and postcolonialism have thus far developed as more orless asymmetrical discourses the former having roots in theatre anthropology(viaVictor Turner) and semiotics the latter in literary and cultural studies as well asin psychoanalysis (via Frantz Fanon) and poststructuralism Of the two discoursespostcolonial theory has been the most consistently political taking as its primaryimperative the task of exposing and redressing unequal power relationships be-tween cultures whereas interculturalism has concerned itself more often with theaesthetics of cultural transfer What postcolonial theory offers to current debatesabout interculturalism is a framework for analyzing such thorny issues as agencyhybridity and authenticity issues that lie at the heart of intercultural praxis Withits insistent stress on historicity and speci city postcolonial theory offers ways ofrelocating the dynamics of intercultural theatre within identi able elds of so-ciopolitical and historical relations This contextualizing enables us to ask at anypoint in the production and reception processes of intercultural work questionsabout individual and collective power Whose economic andor political interestsare being served How is the working process represented to the target audienceand why Who is the target audience and how can differences be addressed withinthis constituency How does a speci c intercultural event impact on the widersociopolitical environment

The term ldquointerculturalrdquo suggests an exploration of the interstice betweencultures it draws our attention to the hyphenated third space separating andconnecting different peoples The act of crossing cultures (with reference to Dol-limorersquos notions of travesty hybridity and con ict) should ideally activate bothcentrifugal and centripetal forces in the process of mutual contamination andinteraction This is an aspect which Pavisrsquos unilinear model of interculturalismcannot take into account We would therefore like to propose an alternativemodel of intercultural exchange which for the purposes of this essay focuses onthe ldquobig picturerdquo and uses some of Pavisrsquos categories and terminologies Ourmodel is both a template for an intercultural practice that encourages more mu-tuality and an attempted representation of the mutuality that has already existedat some level even if it has been limited and nonre exive indeed suppressed inmuch theorizing of particular projects Our aim is to adapt what is essentially anappropriativeassimilationist model into a more collaborativenegotiated oneThe model we have in mind draws inspiration from a toy we used to play withas children in both Malaysia and Australia The toy consisted of a piece of elasticstrung through the middle of a plastic disc The elastic string is held at each endwith the disc supported in the center By rotating the hands in a circular motionthe disc is rotated outward Once the disc is rotating the elastic is alternatelytightened and released to continue the spinning of the disc The disc moves ineither direction along the string depending on whether the tension is generatedby the left or the right hand

In our model intercultural exchange is represented as a two-way ow Bothpartners are considered cultural sources while the target culture is positionedalong the continuum between them The location of the target culture is not xed its position remains uid and depending on where and how the exchangeprocess takes place shifts along the continuum For instance if the performancetakes place in the domain of source culture B then the position of the targetculture moves closer to source Brsquos end of the continuum This uidity not onlyforegrounds the dialogic nature of intercultural exchange but also takes into ac-count the possibility of power disparity in the partnership

Both source cultures bring to the theatrical project cultural apparatuses shapedby their respective sociocultural milieu ( lters 1 and 2) and both undergo a seriesof transformations and challenges in the process of exchange ( lters 3 through 9)

Cross-Cultural Theatre Praxis 45

SourceCulture B

1 cultural modeling2 artistic modeling3 work of adaptation4 preparatory work by

actors5 choice of theatrical

form6 artistic modeling of

target culture7 sociological amp

anthropologicalmodeling of targetculture

8 cultural modeling oftarget culture

9 given and anticipatedconsequences

SourceCulture A

cultural modeling

artistic modeling

work of adaptation

preparatory work byactors

choice of theatricalform

artistic modeling oftarget culture

sociological ampanthropologicalmodeling of targetculture

cultural modeling oftarget culture

given and anticipatedconsequences

SociopoliticalContext

InterculturalProcess for

TargetCulture

SociopoliticalContext

1234

5

6

7

8

9

in relation to each other and in anticipation of the target culture Even if thetarget culture is aligned with one of the source cultures both partners still undergoa similar process of ltration and hybridization however differently experiencedPositioned at the tension between source cultures intercultural exchange is char-acterized both by gain and by loss attraction and disavowal This dialogism isrepresented by the centrifugal and centripetal forces indicated in the diagramabove The proposed model locates all intercultural activity within an identi ablesociopolitical context This serves not only to foreground the inseparability ofartistic endeavors from sociopolitical relations but also to remind us that theoryand reading strategies are themselves deeply imbricated in speci c histories andpolitics

Our model of intercultural theatre rests on a notion of differentiated hybriditythat works in multiple and sometimes opposing ways19 Postcolonial theory haslong recognized that particular modes of hybridity are pinned to social politicaland economic factors which are conditioned in turn by historical experiencesof cultural encounters Extensive debate about the political purchase of hybridityhas prompted scholars such as Robert Young (1995) to distinguish between twokinds of hybridity organic and intentional Organic hybridity which has beenaligned with creolization and metissage is close to the fusion model oftenmanifestin intercultural theory It results in new cultural practices and identities withoutconscious contestation and serves a stabilizing function in settling cultural dif-ferences In this kind of hybridity agency inheres in cosmopolitanism the abilityto cross between cultures and to master their hybrid forms In contrast intentionalhybridity focuses on the process of negotiation between different practices andpoints of view It is characterized by division and separation and tends to be self-re exive with the negotiation process inevitably pinpointing areas of con ict In

Diagram 4 ProposedModel for Interculturalism

46 LoGilbert

this instance agency hinges on the degree to which cultural forms resist dilutionandor co-option According to Young the two categories of hybridity the in-tentional and the organic can be in operation at the same time resulting in anantithetical movement of coalescence and antagonism This offers a

dialectical model for cultural interaction an organic hybridity which willtend towards fusion in con ict with intentional hybridity which enables acontestatory activity a politicized setting of cultural differences againsteach other dialogically (199522)

Debates about hybridity in postcolonial theory tend to go hand in hand withdiscussions of authenticity Grif ths reminds us that ldquoauthenticityrdquo is a politicallycharged concept rather than a ldquonaturalrdquo or preexisting attribute While it may bepolitically exigent for non-Western peoples to deploy discourses of authenticityin order to bolster their cultural authority in the hands of Western critics andcommentators the sign of the ldquoauthenticrdquo can easily become a fetishized com-modity that grounds the legitimacy of other cultures ldquonot in their practice butin our desirerdquo (Grif ths 199482) That much intercultural theatre has been drivenby an intense interest in harnessing ldquotraditionalrdquo performance forms suggests weshould treat authenticity with caution recognizing that it registers and respondsto hierarchies of power In this context the ability to manipulate markers ofauthenticity becomes another measure of agency

Sites of Intervention

If postcolonialism is to denaturalize the universalist vision of the more egre-gious kinds of interculturalism it must bring into focus such aspects of theatre aslanguage space the body costume and spectatorship as ideologically laden signsystems as well as potential sites of hybridity By brie y outlining politicized waysof reading such sign systems20 we hope in the nal section of this essay to suggestpathways into intercultural projects that resist an unproblematized transfer of cul-ture

On the whole intercultural theatre has tended to favor visual spectacle overlinguistic innovation nevertheless there are signi cant language-based issues thatpertain to both its processes and products An elementary but immensely im-portant question is the matter of whose language is used for everyday commu-nication during the devising and rehearsing of speci c productions The fact thatEnglish has become the lingua franca in an increasingly globalized arts communitygives its native speakers considerable power to substantiate their views andorsecure their particular agendas In this respect we should remember that thewide-scale imposition of imperial languages on non-Western peoples has consti-tuted an insidious form of epistemic violence since the system of values inherentin a language becomes the ldquosystem upon which social economic and politicaldiscourses are groundedrdquo (Ashcroft Grif ths and Tif n 1995283) To ask whosevalues are heard and whose are silenced by the use of speci c languages thereforeseems essential to a more politicized form of interculturalism In addition wemight ask how linguistic translationsare conducted and whose interests they serveDoes the translator function as a negotiator or a type of ldquonative informantrdquo Whathappens to linguistic concepts that resist translation or adaptation In terms oftheatrical product language issues are equally complicated How do staged lan-guages animate one another Which carries the cultural authority What happensto the performative features of verbal enunciation particularly when stories frompredominantly oral cultures are presented How might we reread verbally silencedbodies in different ways

Cross-Cultural Theatre Praxis 47

Since intercultural theatre stages a meeting of cultures in both physical andimaginative realmsmdashthe actual place(s) where a project takes place as well as the ctional spaces represented by the mise-en-scenemdashits spatial semantics also de-mand analysis Space is neither neutral nor homogenous it inevitably colors thoserelationships within its limits especially on the stage where con gurations ofspace take on symbolic meaning We need to ask then how the physical spacemeeting place in ects intercultural collaborationWhose ground are we on Whatare the power relations inscribed in the architectural aspects of that place Howcan theatre provide a space for negotiatingor subverting the relationships its spatialcon gurations foster We also need to examine the ideological assumptions thatinhere in the imaginative space(s) created by the scenography What does the setfor instance convey about the cultures involved in the collaboration Whichactors and characters have access topriority over what spaces Where are theborders between cultures and how are they maintained traversed or brokendown What kind of cultural landscape is suggested by the stagescape

Postcolonial theorizing of geography cartography and spatial history showshow space is constructed in the nexus of power and culture rather than simplyexisting as an ontological category This kind of politicized approach brings intofocus the disjunctive gap between visible space and its ctional referent (what weinfer or imagine from our culturally in ected reading of proxemics) It is thenpossible to explore the rhizomatic potential of interculturalismmdashits ability to makemultiple connections and disconnections between cultural spacesmdashand to createrepresentations that are unbounded and open and potentially resistant to im-perialist forms of closure

The body in intercultural theatre is equally subject to multiple inscriptionsproducing an unstable signi er rather than a totalized identity It is a site of con-vergence for contesting discourses even though it may be marked with the dis-tinctive signs of a particular culture Postcolonial theory aims to foreground theways in which power is inscribed on and negotiated through the body Suchtheory continually questions what is spoken through the body how its languagesoperate and in the service of whose vested interests It maintains that the bodyis not only a site of knowledgepower but also a site of resistance which inElizabeth Groszrsquos words ldquoexerts a recalcitrance and always entails the possibilityof counterstrategic re-inscription [because] it is capable of being self-marked self-represented in alternative waysrdquo (199064) We need then to look at how resis-tance is expressed in relation to performative bodies how those bodies encodedifference and speci city and how they can prevent the universalizing impulseof transculturalism

As categories that are constructed through visible differences race and genderhave particular signi cance in this respect it is important to note however thatthese are complex and even unstable categories being historically conditionedrather than determined solely by biology One of the problems intercultural the-atre often faces is how to avoid essentialist constructions of race and gender whilestill accounting for the irreducible speci city of certain bodies and body behav-iors A common response is to elevate particular roles in source texts to the level ofarchetypes that can then be played by any skilled performer Peter Brookrsquos Ma-habharata has been accused of this approach (Dasgupta 1991 Bharucha 199368ndash87) This process of distillation strips the readable signs of culture from the sourcetext rather than provoke the audience to examine the tensions between partici-pating cultures There is no dialogic interaction instead a speci c body is sub-merged in the archetypal role according to the aesthetic principles of the projectPostcolonial theory warns against the dehistoricizing effects of such distillationprocesses It focuses on analyzing the gap between the material body and what itis supposed to represent This involves examining movement as well as bodily ap-

48 LoGilbert

pearance since as Pavis notes ldquoactors simultaneously reveal the culture of thecommunity where they have trained and where they live and the bodily tech-nique they have acquiredrdquo (19963) Rather than working from principles of ab-straction an intercultural practice informed by postcolonialism would play upcultural differences without attempting to deny the effects of the political econ-omy that underpins the project The hybrid counter-energies that result from theclash between the symbolic space and the culturally inscribed body can then pro-duce ldquoa radical heterogeneity discontinuity [and] the perpetual revolutionof formrdquo(Young 199525)

A politicized reading of costume is similarly necessary to the formulation of amore comprehensive theory about intercultural performance It seems that partof the attraction of interculturalism has to do with the fantasy of stepping intoldquonativerdquo costume in a process of cultural transvestism that does anything butsubvert power hierarchies As Gail Ching-Liang Low argues the fantasy of cross-cultural dressing identi es clothes as a ldquolsquobadge and advertisementrsquo of [the domi-nant culturersquos] ability to cross the class and cultural gaprdquo hence cultural transvestismoffers ldquothe promise of lsquotransgressiversquo pleasure without the penalties of actualchangerdquo (198992ndash93) If such transvestism could be used to draw attention tothe dif culties that inhere in crossing cultural gaps costume would then becomeanother possible site of resistant inscription rather than a conduit for the one-waycultural transfer that currently characterizes certain forms of interculturalismThisis where postcolonial theories about mimicry masquerade and self-consciousconstructions of subjectivity can come into play because they treat costume as amalleable and even ambiguous signi er rather than a transparent sign of particulargender racial social and national identities

Degrees of power and privilege are also embedded in the framing mechanismsthrough which particular elements of a performance are presented to its audi-ence(s) Typically intercultural theatre positions the performance traditions andoractual bodies of ldquootherrdquo cultures as focal points of the Western viewerrsquos specularconsumption and it is through this kind of untroubled and desiring gaze thatrei ed images of cultural difference are validated and circulated on the ldquointer-nationalrdquo arts market If intercultural theatre means to address the potential in-equities involved in Western appropriations of other cultural traditions then itsadherents must conceive of a theatre that somehow engages with its own estab-lished ldquolookingrdquo relations Interventionary frameworks and other metatheatricaldevicesmdashthese might range from direct audience address to self-conscious roleplaying to forum discussionmdashcan be used to problematize the implicitly im-perialist object-relations model of cross-cultural spectatorship Within the self-re exive theatre that we envision the hybridizing of cultural fragments wouldbe far from seamless cultural tensions would not be hidden nor difference nat-uralized

Conclusion

We have attempted to map the eld of cross-cultural theatre as a way of think-ing through its complexities and contradictions Despite our efforts to integratea diverse range of theories and practices into a ldquobig-picturerdquo account of the eldwe are not advocating a totalizing theory of cultural exchange Rather our dis-cussion is designed to enable a strategic way of rethinking the local and context-speci c through the global and vice versa This sort of matrixed model we wouldargue proffers a more nuanced method of actualizing and analyzing the range ofwork that is increasingly becoming a globalized praxis

Our all too brief survey of potential sites of intervention in the practice andinterpretation of intercultural theatre outlines some of the ways in which the

Cross-Cultural Theatre Praxis 49

mise-en-scene can be politicized and the notion of cultural hegemony relativizedIn an age where cultural boundaries are continually traversed and identities arebecoming increasingly hybridized an intercultural theatre practice informed bypostcolonial theory can potentially function as a site where this intersecting ofcultures is both re ected and critiqued Such a practice would align with (thoughnot necessarily replicate) Gomez-Penarsquos formulation of ldquoborder artrdquo in whichthe performerrsquos job is ldquoto trespass bridge interconnect reinterpret remap andrede nerdquo the limits of culture (199612) It is vital that intercultural theatrersquospotential to cross cultures is not co-opted and neutralized by the ldquoweakerrdquo formsof postmodernism which tend to result in an abstract depoliticized and ahis-torical notion of ldquodifferencerdquo or in effect a masked ldquoindifferencerdquo In this re-spect Homi Bhabharsquos clari cation of postcolonial hybridity as based on anagonistic relationship rather than a seamless fusion offers a workable model foran ethics as well as an aesthetics of cross-cultural engagement

Hybrid hyphenations emphasise the incommensurable elements [] as thebasis of cultural identi cations What is at issue is the performative natureof differential identities the regulation and negotiation of those spaces thatare continually contingently ldquoopening outrdquo remaking the boundariesexposing the limits of any claim to a singular or autonomous sign of dif-ferencemdashbe it class gender or race Such assignations of social differ-encesmdashwhere difference is neither One nor the Other but something elsebesides in-betweenmdash nd their agency in [] an interstitial future thatemerges in between the claims of the past and the needs of the present(1994219)

The kind of hyphenated hybridity that Bhabha outlines is already within theconceptual reach of interculturalism It is now time for a more sustained andsystematic engagement with the politics of its production

Notes

1 ldquoAgencyrdquo refers here to the potential to act or perform an action autonomously it registersdegrees of power and knowledge combined since to act autonomously is to understand theideological systems in which one is imbricated

2 For an extended discussion of multiculturalism in Canada Australia and the United Statessee Gunew (199351ndash65)

3 See Bennett (1996144ndash47) for examples of small ldquomrdquo multicultural theatre in which blind-cast productions of Shakespearersquos The Tempest unwittingly reproduced dominant culturalvalues

4 Guillermo Gomez-Pena critiques a similar model of intercultural encounter in his conceptof ldquocorporaterdquo or ldquotransnationalrdquo multiculturalism which he argues characterizes manybusiness and media conglomeratesrsquo current interest in difference Such difference performsthe ldquopassive roles of glossy images and exotic backgroundrdquo and real diversity is ldquo attenedand equalized by high production valuesrdquo (200112)

5 Examples of big ldquoMrdquo multicultural theatre include various projects done by El Teatro Cam-pesino (US) Talawa (Britain) Doppio Teatro and Urban Theatre Projects (Australia) andCahoots Theatre Projects (Canada) Of course there have been numerous projects (espe-cially in non-Western countries) that t within our de nition of multicultural theatre al-though the speci c practitioners involved may not identify their work in this way Examplesinclude projects by Five Arts Centre (Malaysia) William Kentridge and the HandspringPuppet Company (South Africa) Rustom Bharucha (India) and Gomez-Pena (USAMexico)

6 Our identi cation of ghetto and migrant theatres is in uenced by Richard Fotheringhamrsquoswork ([1987] 1992197ndash98)

7 For further explication of community theatre see Baz Kershaw (1992)

50 LoGilbert

8 For some time postcolonial theatre has been well theorized as a conceptual category albeita contested one however in-depth engagement with postcolonialism has been conspicu-ously absent from discussions of cross-cultural performance work in journals such as TDRSimilarly Patrice Pavisrsquos introduction to The Intercultural Performance Reader (1996) virtuallydismisses the eld of postcolonial theatre even though some of the bookrsquos contents clearly t within this grouping

9 Wole Soyinka Derek Walcott and Girish Karnad are the most prominent of a very largeand diverse group of dramatists who might be catagorized as ldquopostcolonialrdquo Well-knownindigenous theatre groups in countries permanently colonized by European powers includeKooemba Jdarra (Australia) Taki Rua Productions (New Zealand) Spiderwoman (USA) andNative Earth Performing Arts (Canada) See Gilbert and Tompkins (1996) for an extendedaccount of the eld

10 See the introduction to Christopher Balmersquos book Decolonizing the Stage Theatrical Syncre-tism and Post-Colonial Drama (1999) for an extended history of the conceptual category ofsyncretic theatre Balme has been the key theorist of this form of cross-cultural performancefor several years though he initially assessed its overarching function as cultural rapproche-ment rather than decolonization andor resistance

11 His notable theatre projects include Tooth of Crime (1973) Mother Courage (1975) The Pro-metheus Project (1983ndash85) and Three Sisters (1995ndash97)

12 The Tales from South Asia project as documented by Sharon Grady and Phillip Zarilli (1994)exhibits most of the features of the collaborative model The stated aims of the projectrsquosinitiators were to

develop a strategy of presentation and representation which engages an audienceandor students in ldquodifferencerdquo without stereotyping essentializing romanticizingthe ldquoother and keeping onersquos audience aware of contestation as a social realityrdquo(Grady and Zarilli 1994169)

13 Similar celebratory responses can be found in Williams (1992) and Wilshire and Wilshire(1989)

14 This position has been described elsewhere as ldquohappy hybridityrdquo (see Lo 2000)15 Schechnerrsquos 1989 article ldquoIntercultural Themesrdquo maps his thinking on the subject up to

the end of the 1980s see his 1996 interview with Pavis for a more recent account16 On a similar note Craig Latrell recently argued for a more complex reading of intercultural

exchange beyond the ldquovictim-victimizer narrativerdquo The non-Western cultures should notbe perceived as passive receivers of Western ideas but rather active manipulators of suchin uences (200045ndash46) His analysis of the speci city of theatrical agency is howeverweakened by the lack of attention to historical speci city and particularly the impact ofcolonialism in Singapore and Indonesia

17 For detailed explanation see Pavis (19924ndash20)18 Pavis adheres to the idea of turning the hourglass over for other perspectives but unlike

his earlier theorization which advocated the reversal as a way for the source culture tomonitor its own process of exchange the latest discussion appears to consolidate the primacyof the dominant culture

At the end of the process when spectators feel themselves buried alive under thesand of signs and symbols they have no other salvation than to give up and turn thehourglass upside down Then the perspective inverts and one must reverse andrelativize the sediments accumulated in the receiving culture and judge them fromthe point of view of alterity and relativity (199618)

19 For a fuller account of various modes of hybridity see Lo (2000152ndash55)20 See Gilbert (199813ndash25) for a more detailed discussion of the ways in which postcolonial

theory can be used to interpret ideological aspects of performance

References

Ambush Benny Sato1989 ldquoPluralism to the Bonerdquo American Theatre 615

Cross-Cultural Theatre Praxis 51

Ang Ien and John Stratton1994 ldquoMulticultural Imagined Communities Cultural Difference and National Iden-

tity in Australia and the USArdquo Continuum The Australian Journal of Media andCulture 8 2124ndash58

Ashcroft Bill Gareth Grif ths and Helen Tif n eds1995 The Post-Colonial Studies Reader London Routledge

Balme Christopher1999 Decolonizing the Stage Theatrical Syncretism and Post-Colonial Drama Oxford Ox-

ford University Press

Barba Eugenio1996 ldquoEurasian Theatrerdquo In The Intercultural Performance Reader edited by Patrice Pav-

ice 217ndash22 London Routledge

Bennett Susan1996 Performing Nostalgia Shifting Shakespeare and the ContemporaryPast LondonRout-

ledge

Bhabha Homi1994 The Location of Culture London Routledge

Bharucha Rustom1993 Theatre and the World Performance and the Politics of Culture London Routledge2000 The Politics of Cultural Practice Thinking through Theatre in an Age of Globalisation

London Athlone Press

Brandon James1990 ldquoContemporary Japanese Theatre Interculturalism and Intraculturalismrdquo In The

Dramatic Touch of Difference Theatre Own and Foreign edited by Erika Fischer-Lichte Michael Gissenwehrer and Josephine Riley 89ndash97 Tubingen Narr

Brown John Russell1998 ldquoTheatrical Pillage in Asia Redirecting the Intercultural Traf crdquo New Theatre

Quarterly 14 539ndash19

Carlson Marvin1990 ldquoPeter Brookrsquos The Mahabharata and Ariane Mnouchkinersquos LrsquoIndiade as Ex-

amples of Contemporary Cross-cultural Theatrerdquo In The Dramatic Touch of Dif-ference Theatre Own and Foreign edited by Erika Fischer-Lichte Michael Gissen-wehrer and Josephine Riley 49ndash56 Tubingen Narr

Carter David1986 ldquoThe Natives Are Getting Restless Nationalism Multiculturalism and Migrant

Writingrdquo Island Magazine 25263ndash8

Chin Daryl1991 ldquoInterculturalism Postmodernism Pluralismrdquo In Interculturalism and Performance

Writings from PAJ edited by Bonnie Marranca and Gautam Dasgupta 83ndash95New York PAJ Publications

Clifford James1994 ldquoDiasporasrdquo Cultural Anthropology 9 3 302ndash38

Dasgupta Gautam1991 ldquoThe Mahabharata Peter Brookrsquos Orientalismrdquo In Interculturalism and Perfor-

mance Writings from PAJ edited by Bonnie Marranca and Gautam Dasgupta 75ndash82 New York PAJ Publications

De Reuck Jenny2000 ldquolsquoThe mirror shattered into tiny piecesrsquo Reading Gender and Culture in the

Japan Foundation Asia Centrersquos LEARrdquo Intersections Online Asian Studies Journal3 6 httpwwwsshemurdocheduauintersectionsissue3jenny3html (12January 2001)

36 LoGilbert

of different cultures into a form that aims to retain the cultural integrity of thespeci c materials used while forging new texts and theatre practices10 This in-tegrative process tends to highlight rather than disguise shifts in the meaningfunction and value of cultural fragments as they are moved from their traditionalcontexts In postcolonial societies syncretic theatre generally involves the incor-poration of indigenous material into a Western dramaturgical framework whichis itself modi ed by the fusion process Christopher Balme argues that such syn-cretism activates a ldquocultural and aesthetic semiotic recoding that ultimately ques-tions the basis of normative Western dramardquo this creative endeavor is to bedistinguished from ldquotheatrical exoticismrdquo in which ldquoindigenous cultural texts arearbitrarily recoded and semanticised in a Western aesthetic and ideological framerdquowhere they tend to signify mere alterity (19994ndash5) Well-known examples ofsyncretic postcolonial theatre include works by Sistren Theatre Collective andDerek Walcott in the Caribbean Girish Karnad in India and Wole Soyinka andFemi Oso san in Nigeria A signi cant number of Aboriginal Maori and nativeNorth American plays also use syncretic performance strategies as part of theirlarger agenda of cultural recuperation

Nonsyncretic theatre by de nition does not merge disparate cultural forms butrather uses imposed imperial genresaesthetics or less often wholly indigenousones to voice postcolonial concerns For instance Western-style realism has beenwidely used to stage anticolonial narratives emanating from both indigenous andsettler communities Among the latter Australiarsquos Louis Nowra and CanadarsquosSharon Pollock gure as high-pro le playwrights whose work could be charac-terized as postcolonial but not syncretic The distinction between syncretic andnonsyncretic theatre is more dif cult to maintain in cases such as indigenousperformances of Shakespearian texts where European characters are enacted byldquoblackrdquo or ldquocoloredrdquo actors instituting tension between the performance at issueand the tradition that it transgresses It could be argued here that syncretisminheres in the juxtaposition of the performersrsquo bodies (as culturally coded sign-systems) to scripts ineluctably embedded with markers of a different culture Thisexample suggests that postcolonial theatre is best conceptualized as exhibitingvarying degrees of syncretism rather than falling neatly into opposing categories

Intercultural Theatre

Whereas multicultural theatre is often the effect of state-determined culturalmanagement andor a grassroots response to the ldquolived realityrdquo of cultural plu-ralism and postcolonial theatre is produced as part of (and in opposition to) ahistorical process of imperialism and neoimperialism intercultural theatre is char-acterized as a ldquovoluntarist intervention circumscribed by the agencies of the stateand the marketrdquo (Bharucha 200033) Multicultural theatre functions within astatist framework premised on ideals of citizenship and the management of cul-turalethnic difference while intercultural theatre and to a certain extent post-colonial theatre have more latitude to explore and critique alternative formsof citizenship and identity across and beyond national boundaries although thesubjectivities they produce are not wholly free of state mediation Put simplyintercultural theatre is a hybrid derived from an intentional encounter betweencultures and performing traditions It is primarily a Western-based tradition witha lineage in modernist experimentation through the work of Tairov MeyerholdBrecht Artaud and Grotowski More recently intercultural theatre has beenassociated with the works of Richard Schechner Peter Brook Eugenio BarbaAriane Mnouchkine Robert Wilson Tadashi Suzuki and Ong Keng Sen Evenwhen intercultural exchanges take place within the ldquonon-Westrdquo they are often

Cross-Cultural Theatre Praxis 37

mediated through Western culture andor economics Ongrsquos ldquoPan-Asianrdquo spec-taculars LEAR (1997) and Desdemona (1999) are cases in point (see De Reuck2000 and Grehan 2000)

One only has to refer to Pavisrsquos The Intercultural Performance Reader (1996) toappreciate the range of approaches encompassed by the term ldquointerculturalismrdquoand the extent to which it evades any neat de nition While attempting to mapdevelopments in the eld The Reader documents diverse positions that fore-ground interculturalism as a contested site for both theory and practice Despitethis apparent diversity there is evidence pointing to interculturalism as a Westernvision of exchange Pavis himself acknowledges this bias explaining that the col-lection was ldquolargely produced by and aimed at a European and Anglo-Americanreadershiprdquo (199625) The privileging of the West is evident in the ways in whichthe essays are grouped within the book for instance the juxtapositioning of PartII titled ldquoIntercultural Performance from the Western Point of Viewrdquo with PartIII ldquoIntercultural Performance from Another Point of Viewrdquo replicates the ldquoWestand the restrdquo binary paradigm and reveals a problematic ideological aporia Putdifferently interculturalism as it has been theorized and documented thus far isalready overdetermined by the West

Although Pavis echoing Erika Fischer-Lichte claims that it is too soon topropose a global theory of interculturalism (19961) there already exists a glob-alizing practice that demands further political and ethical interrogationSimilarlyJulie Holledge and Joanne Tompkins (2000) contend that intercultural theatre istoo varied and process-based to warrant a general theory They opt instead for asite-speci c study of intercultural projects But this reluctance to engage with theldquobig picturerdquo arguably runs the risk of consolidating the ideological premises ofinterculturalism as a Western-dominated form of knowledge production By priv-ileging content speci city the false dichotomy between praxis and theory is main-tained this also has the effect of relegating issues of ethics to the particular andthe ldquoone off rdquo rather than relating these to larger issues of knowledge formationwithin institutional national and global contexts

Our study of a range of intercultural practice and the theoretical discussion ithas generated suggests that the eld can be loosely divided into three subcate-gories

Transcultural theatre aims to transcend culture-speci c codi cation in order toreach a more universal human condition Transcultural directors are interested inparticularities and traditions only insofar as they enable the directors to identifyaspects of commonality rather than difference (Pavis 19966) There are manyvariations to this search for the universal In the case of Peter Brook transcen-dence of the particular is a necessary part of the mythic quest for origins andWestern theatrersquos supposed loss of ldquopurityrdquo This return to sources and the reap-propriation of primitive languages is a metaphysical quest for a truth that holdseverywhere and at any time irrespective of historical or cultural differences InOrghast (1970) for instance Brook attempted to create an original tonal languageby tapping into a primeval consciousness Eugenio Barbarsquos work in ISTA (Inter-national School of Theatre Anthropology) is another form of transculturaltheatrePavis distinguishes Barbarsquos work as ldquopreculturalrdquo it does not aim to identify thecommon origins of cultures in Brookrsquos way but rather seeks what is common toldquoEasternrdquo and ldquoWesternrdquo theatre practitioners before they become individualizedor ldquoacculturatedrdquo in particular traditions and techniques of performance (19967)According to Barba the goal is to compare the work methods of both Easternand Western theatre and ldquoto reach down into a common technical substratumrdquowhich is ldquothe domain of pre-expressivity [] At this pre-expressive level theprinciples are the same even though they nurture the enormous expressive dif-

38 LoGilbert

ferences which exist between one tradition and another one actor and anotherrdquo(1996220) Barba stresses that these principles are analogous to one another ratherthan homologous nevertheless his search for an essence beyond socialization ischaracteristic of the desire to transcend social and cultural ldquotrappingsrdquo in a movetoward a ldquopurerrdquo mode of communication and theatrical presence

Intracultural theatre is Rustom Bharucharsquos term to denote cultural encountersbetween and across speci c communities and regions within the nation-stateMore speci cally in relation to his own ldquointraculturalrdquo work Bharucha pointsto internal diversity within the boundaries of a particular region or nation Thissense of the intracultural has similarities to the multicultural

insofar as they assume either the interaction or the coexistence of regionaland local cultures within the larger framework of the nation-state How-ever while the ldquointrardquo prioritizes the interactivity and translation of di-verse cultures the ldquomultirdquo upholds a notion of cohesiveness (Bharucha20009)

In this way intracultural theatre serves a critical function in challenging ldquoorgan-icist notions of culture by highlighting the deeply fragmented and divided society[] that multicultural rhetoric of the state refuses to acknowledgerdquo (Bharucha20009)

Extracultural theatre refers to theatre exchanges that are conducted along a West-East and North-South axis The converse of intraculturalism this form of inter-culturalism goes back to the modernist pioneers who looked to the non-West torejuvenate Western art Schechner is the best-known contemporary exponent ofthis practice his experimental productions dating back to the late 1960s with thestaging of a West Irian birth ritual in Dionysus in 69 (1968) and subsequentlydeveloping through numerous theatre projects and theoretical essays in the eld11

While extracultural theatre can encompass some forms of transcultural theatre asin Brookrsquos Mahabharata (1985) it also includes intercultural experiments whichdo not aim to relativize or transcend cultural differences but rather to celebrateand even interrogate such differences as a source of cultural empowerment andaesthetic richness As a category of analysis extracultural theatre always begsquestions about the power dynamics inherent in the economic and political lo-cation of the participating cultures even if such questions are evaded in accountsof actual practice

The remainder of this essay will focus primarily on this extracultural form ofintercultural theatre

Modes of Conducting Intercultural Theatre

The range of working methods employed in intercultural theatre can generallybe positioned along a continuum One pole of the continuum is characterizedby a collaborative mode of exchange while the opposite pole is characterized asimperialistic Most intercultural theatre occurs somewhere between these twoextremes and speci c projects may shift along the continuum depending on thephase of cultural production It is vital that the continuum is conceived in pro-cessual rather than xed terms in order to foreground intercultural exchange asa dynamic process rather than a static transaction

Diagram 2 Continuum ofIntercultural Modes

Cross-Cultural Theatre Praxis 39

Collaborative

Intercultural exchange at this end of the continuum tends to emphasize theprocesses and politics of exchange rather than the theatrical product per se Thisform of theatre-making places great importance on cultural negotiations at alllevels from the highly personal and individualistic to the ldquosuperstructuralrdquo andinstitutional Collaborative interculturalism is often community-generated ratherthan market andor state-driven There is less of a focus on maintaining theldquopurityrdquo of the various cultures for exotic display The exchange process is oftenmarked by tension and incommensurability While there is a general desire tomaintain equitable power relations between partners the aim is not to producea harmonious experience of theatre-making but rather to explore the fullness ofcultural exchange in all its contradictions and convergences for all parties Thetheatre product may similarly resist forced synthesis revealing instead both thepositive and negative aspects of the encounter12 Ferdinand Ortizrsquos concept oftransculturation (not to be confused with transculturalism) offers a useful way ofanalyzing collaborative interculturalism by going beyond a model of easy fusionto account for both acquisition and loss at the same time In the transculturationprocess elements of each system of culture are lost in the creation of a thirdsystem Cultural encounter of this kind can be potentially counterhegemonic itallows minor cultures to act on dominant ones rather than merely submit tocultural loss in the transaction (see Taylor 199162ndash63)

Imperialistic

Intercultural exchange at this end of the continuum is often driven by a senseof Western culture as bankrupt and in need of invigoration from the non-WestThe resulting theatre tends to tap into ldquoOtherrdquo cultural traditions that are per-ceived as ldquoauthenticrdquo and uncontaminated by (Western) modernity Interculturalpractice in this mode is largely an aesthetic response to cultural diversity Thereis a discernible difference in agency between partners such inequity is oftenhistorically based and may continue in the present through economic politicaland technological dominance This form of theatre tends to be product-orientedand usually produced for the dominant culturersquos consumption Performances areoften highly spectacular with emphasis placed on the aesthetic and formal qualitiesof the mise-en-scene The intercultural work of practitioners such as ArianeMnouchkine has been described as imperialist though Mnouchkine refutes thischarge preferring to see her appropriations of Asian performing traditions as aform of indebtedness and ldquohomagerdquo Maria Shevtsova defends this position byasserting that Mnouchkine does not purport to use the ldquooriginalrdquo art form andthat her ldquoborrowingrdquo practices should be understood within the logic of herWestern system of aestheticism (1997102)

Responses to Interculturalism

Given the range of intercultural modalities it is not surprising that criticaltheoretical responses are similarly varied Generally speaking most commentatorshave analyzed interculturalism as practice their responses ranging from the ce-lebratory to the highly critical Schechnerrsquos earlier writings about interculturalpractice exemplify many aspects of the celebratory stance13 Schechner refers tothe intercultural experimentations in the US from the 1950s to the mid rsquo70s asa ldquogolden age of innocencerdquo

People didnrsquot question too much whether or not this interculturalism []was a continuation of colonialism a further exploitation of other cultures

40 LoGilbert

There was something simply celebratory about discovering how diversethe world was how many performance genres there were and how wecould enrich our own experience by borrowing stealing exchanging(198219)

This neoliberal embrace of cultural difference celebrates the possibilities of cul-tural fusion and the construction of radical subjectivities beyond national andethnic boundaries Intercultural practice in this sense is deeply imbricated inglobalization and the perceived deterritorialization of social cultural and politicalboundaries for those in the developed world even if this is not often acknowl-edged by the critics and practitioners themselves14 It should be noted thatSchechnerrsquos position has shifted signi cantly since then15 over the last decade inparticular his critical work shows less of a tendency to idealize cross-culturalexchange and a keener awareness of power relations He also acknowledges the

misunderstandings broken languages and failed transactions that occurwhen and where cultures collide overlap or pull away from each otherThese are seen not as obstacles to be overcome but as fertile rifts or erup-tions full of creative potential (19913)

At the other end of the scale is the ethical critique of intercultural practice asinvasive globalization Daryl Chin argues that

Interculturalism hinges on the questions of autonomy and empowermentTo deploy elements from the symbol system of another culture is a verydelicate enterprise In its crudest terms the question is when does thatusage act as cultural imperialism Forcing elements from disparate culturestogether does not seem to be a solution that makes much sense aestheti-cally ethically or philosophically What does that prove that the knowl-edge of other cultures exists That information about other cultures nowis readily available (199194)

For Bharucha likewise interculturalism cannot be separated from a larger his-tory of colonialism and orientalism (see also Dasgupta 1991) He contends thatinterculturalism is an inherently ethnocentric practice which seeks to synthesizecultural difference rather than respect its individual histories

The problem arises [] when the preoccupation with the ldquoself rdquo over-powers the representation of ldquootherrdquo cultures [and] when the Other isnot another but the projection of onersquos ego Then all one has is a glori -cation of the self and a co-option of other cultures in the name of repre-sentation (199328)

John Russell Brown adds

Exchange borrowing trade or looting across major frontiers diminishesany theatre because it transgresses its inherited reliance on the societyfrom which the drama takes its life and for which it was intended to beperformed [] However worthily it is intended intercultural theatricalexchange is in fact a form of pillage and the result is fancy-dress pre-tence or at best the creation of a small zoo in which no creature has itsfull life (199814)

Cross-Cultural Theatre Praxis 41

Such moral critiques while absolutely essential to the politicizing of intercul-turalism risk instigating a kind of paralysis insofar as they suggest that virtuallyno form of theatrical exchange can be ethical16 This position is clearly untenablefor a number of practitioners especially those whose art is derived from (andaims to explore) experiences of cultural hybridity For instance performanceartisttheorist Guillermo Gomez-Pena a self-confessed ldquochild of crisis and cul-tural syncretismrdquo (199338) sees his own work (and the desirable future of Amer-ican theatre) as inevitably pluralistic unavoidably intercultural But he is alsoacutely aware of the implications of intercultural work noting that it is ldquofunda-mental to address relationships of power and assumptions about privilege amongthe participating artists communities and countriesrdquo in order to develop ethicalmodels of theatrical exchange (19969) To facilitate this Gomez-Pena calls for amuch more rigorous public debate about cultural issues in general about equityand diversity about de nitions of ldquomulti- inter- intra- and cross-culturalrdquoabout which encounters between cultures are ldquosymmetrical and desirable andwhich are more reactionaryrdquo (199357) In projects such as Temple of Confessions(1994) A Seminar on Museum Race Relations (1995) and Mexterminator Project(1999)mdashdeliberately provocative works that are at times even ldquounethicalrdquomdashGomez-Pena relentlessly stages aspects of this debate always avoiding de nitiveanswers

Theoretical Models of Interculturalism

While many critics have posed theoretical challenges to the intercultural en-terprise there have been surprisingly few attempts to formulate a comprehensivemodel of intercultural exchange Marvin Carlson has offered a scale consisting ofseven categories of cross-cultural in uence based on ldquopossible relationships be-tween the culturally familiar and the culturally foreignrdquo (199050) While usefulfor differentiating types of projects this scale does not move beyond an essentiallytaxonomic analysis of the eld Fischer-Lichte takes a different tack focusingspeci cally on the adaptation process which she insists follows a model of ldquopro-ductive receptionrdquo rather than one of translation (1997154ndash55) Productive re-ception emphasizes aspects of a performance caused or in uenced by receptionand is aligned in Fischer-Lichtersquos work with the project of revitalizing tired the-atrical practices though she does not elaborate on the precise dynamics involved

Pavis has thus far been the only critic able to sustain a comprehensive modelof intercultural exchange His hourglass model depicts in its upper bowl theforeign or source culture ldquowhich is more or less codi ed and solidi ed in diverseanthropological sociocultural or artistic modelizationsrdquo (19924) This is repre-sented by lters 1 and 2 in the diagram below The ldquograins of culturerdquo trickledown to the lower bowl and are rearranged in the process The lters 3 through11 put in place by the target culture and the observer largely determine the nalformation of the grains17 The model focuses on ldquothe intercultural transfer be-tween source and target culturerdquo as a way of depicting the relativity of the notionof culture and the complicated relationship between partners in the exchange(19925)

Critique of the Hourglass Model

In practice Pavisrsquos hourglass is an accurate model of most intercultural workof the extracultural kind But the modelrsquos strength is also its weakness it cannotaccount for alternative and more collaborative forms of intercultural exchangeDespite Pavisrsquos wariness of a translationcommunication model of intercultural-ism his elaboration of the process of cultural transfer reveals its dependence on

42 LoGilbert

translation theory The main problem with this model is that it assumes a one-way cultural ow based on a hierarchy of privilege even though Pavis attemptsto relativize the power relations by claiming that the hourglass can be turnedupside-down ldquoas soon as the users of a foreign culture ask themselves how theycan communicate their own culture to another target culturerdquo (19925) Thishowever assumes that there is a ldquolevel-playing eldrdquo between the partners in theexchange and does not account for the fact that the bene ts of globalization andthe permeability of cultures and political systems are accessed differentially fordifferent communities and nations

A translation model of interculturalism therefore runs the risk of reproducingstrategies of containment As Tejaswine Niranjana points out

By employing certain modes of representing the othermdashwhich it therebyalso brings into beingmdashtranslation reinforces hegemonic versions of thecolonized helping them acquire the status of what Edward Said calls rep-resentations or objects without history (19923)

Diagram 3 Pavisrsquos hour-glass Model of InterculturalTheatre

Cross-Cultural Theatre Praxis 43

Pavis is not unaware of this danger

If [the hourglass] is only a mill it will blend the source culture destroy itsevery speci city and drop into the lower bowl an inert and deformed sub-stance which will have lost its original modeling without being moldedinto that of the target culture If it is only a funnel it will indiscriminatelyabsorb the initial substance without reshaping it through the series of l-ters or leaving any trace of the original matter (19925)

Having said this however Pavis is unable to account for interculturalism as aprocess of political negotiation For example he argues that the mise-en-sceneas the central site of interculturalism functions as a ldquokind of reglage (lsquo ne-tuningrsquo)rdquo which mediates between different contexts cultural backgrounds andtraditions (19926) ldquoFine-tuningrdquo serves to smooth over differences in ways thatbecome intelligible for the target culture Similarly ldquoreception-adaptersrdquo ( lter8) ll the lacunae in the transfer of cultural content and dissipate the tensions ofincommensurability in order to create a ldquoreadablerdquo text for the target culture

The teleology of the hourglass model ultimately reduces interculturalexchangeto an alimentary process According to this logic the body belongs to the targetculture while the source culture becomes the food which must be digested andassimilated As Pavis notes only the grains that are ldquosuf ciently nerdquo will ldquo owthrough [the hourglass neck] without any troublerdquo (19924) His model cannotaccount for blockage collisions and retroaction as sites of either intervention orresistance In the nal analysis intercultural exchange according to the hourglassmodel is a reductive process which distills cultural difference into essences thatcan be readily absorbed by the target culture While Pavis does acknowledge thein uence of the social context ( lters 10B and 10C) the temporally bound meta-phor of the hourglass suggests that sociohistorical factors rather than in ectingthe entire intercultural process simply constitute the nal lter before the the-atrical product is consumed by the target culture In short the hourglass modelis premised on aesthetics rather than on politics

Pavis does not stray far from this model in his more recent theorization of the eld (1996) proffering instead a more careful schematization of different formsand modes of intercultural practice Although he does acknowledge the proble-matics of power inequities between partners in the exchange noting that ldquotherecan be no sense in which Asian perspectives are always reversible and symmetricalwith those of the Westmdashas a purely functionalist use of the hourglass turnedover and over ad in nitum might lead us naively to believerdquo (19962) there islittle sense that he has revised the translation principles underlying his model18

Pavis takes account of some of the recent ethical critiques of interculturalismandis particularly wary of it being absorbed into a postmodernist form of culturalrelativism Although he claims that ldquoexchange implies a theory and an ethics ofalterityrdquo (199611) he does not foreground the ethical dimension in any discern-ible way Signi cantly Pavis claims that the kind of intercultural practice thatholds the most potential for ldquoresistance against standardization against the Eu-ropeanization of super-productionsrdquo is the ldquointer-corporeal work in which anactor confronts hisher technique and professional identity with those of theothersrdquo (1996150) By locating the potential for agency at this microscopic levelof actor training Pavis reveals the limitations of the hourglass model as an effectivetemplate for a politicized theorization of the entire eld of interculturalism

Matrixing Interculturalism and Postcolonialism

One way of approaching the problems raised by Pavisrsquos model of interculturaltheatre is to consider its mechanisms through the lens of postcolonial theory

44 LoGilbert

Despite their shared concern with the phenomenon of cultural encounter the-ories of interculturalism and postcolonialism have thus far developed as more orless asymmetrical discourses the former having roots in theatre anthropology(viaVictor Turner) and semiotics the latter in literary and cultural studies as well asin psychoanalysis (via Frantz Fanon) and poststructuralism Of the two discoursespostcolonial theory has been the most consistently political taking as its primaryimperative the task of exposing and redressing unequal power relationships be-tween cultures whereas interculturalism has concerned itself more often with theaesthetics of cultural transfer What postcolonial theory offers to current debatesabout interculturalism is a framework for analyzing such thorny issues as agencyhybridity and authenticity issues that lie at the heart of intercultural praxis Withits insistent stress on historicity and speci city postcolonial theory offers ways ofrelocating the dynamics of intercultural theatre within identi able elds of so-ciopolitical and historical relations This contextualizing enables us to ask at anypoint in the production and reception processes of intercultural work questionsabout individual and collective power Whose economic andor political interestsare being served How is the working process represented to the target audienceand why Who is the target audience and how can differences be addressed withinthis constituency How does a speci c intercultural event impact on the widersociopolitical environment

The term ldquointerculturalrdquo suggests an exploration of the interstice betweencultures it draws our attention to the hyphenated third space separating andconnecting different peoples The act of crossing cultures (with reference to Dol-limorersquos notions of travesty hybridity and con ict) should ideally activate bothcentrifugal and centripetal forces in the process of mutual contamination andinteraction This is an aspect which Pavisrsquos unilinear model of interculturalismcannot take into account We would therefore like to propose an alternativemodel of intercultural exchange which for the purposes of this essay focuses onthe ldquobig picturerdquo and uses some of Pavisrsquos categories and terminologies Ourmodel is both a template for an intercultural practice that encourages more mu-tuality and an attempted representation of the mutuality that has already existedat some level even if it has been limited and nonre exive indeed suppressed inmuch theorizing of particular projects Our aim is to adapt what is essentially anappropriativeassimilationist model into a more collaborativenegotiated oneThe model we have in mind draws inspiration from a toy we used to play withas children in both Malaysia and Australia The toy consisted of a piece of elasticstrung through the middle of a plastic disc The elastic string is held at each endwith the disc supported in the center By rotating the hands in a circular motionthe disc is rotated outward Once the disc is rotating the elastic is alternatelytightened and released to continue the spinning of the disc The disc moves ineither direction along the string depending on whether the tension is generatedby the left or the right hand

In our model intercultural exchange is represented as a two-way ow Bothpartners are considered cultural sources while the target culture is positionedalong the continuum between them The location of the target culture is not xed its position remains uid and depending on where and how the exchangeprocess takes place shifts along the continuum For instance if the performancetakes place in the domain of source culture B then the position of the targetculture moves closer to source Brsquos end of the continuum This uidity not onlyforegrounds the dialogic nature of intercultural exchange but also takes into ac-count the possibility of power disparity in the partnership

Both source cultures bring to the theatrical project cultural apparatuses shapedby their respective sociocultural milieu ( lters 1 and 2) and both undergo a seriesof transformations and challenges in the process of exchange ( lters 3 through 9)

Cross-Cultural Theatre Praxis 45

SourceCulture B

1 cultural modeling2 artistic modeling3 work of adaptation4 preparatory work by

actors5 choice of theatrical

form6 artistic modeling of

target culture7 sociological amp

anthropologicalmodeling of targetculture

8 cultural modeling oftarget culture

9 given and anticipatedconsequences

SourceCulture A

cultural modeling

artistic modeling

work of adaptation

preparatory work byactors

choice of theatricalform

artistic modeling oftarget culture

sociological ampanthropologicalmodeling of targetculture

cultural modeling oftarget culture

given and anticipatedconsequences

SociopoliticalContext

InterculturalProcess for

TargetCulture

SociopoliticalContext

1234

5

6

7

8

9

in relation to each other and in anticipation of the target culture Even if thetarget culture is aligned with one of the source cultures both partners still undergoa similar process of ltration and hybridization however differently experiencedPositioned at the tension between source cultures intercultural exchange is char-acterized both by gain and by loss attraction and disavowal This dialogism isrepresented by the centrifugal and centripetal forces indicated in the diagramabove The proposed model locates all intercultural activity within an identi ablesociopolitical context This serves not only to foreground the inseparability ofartistic endeavors from sociopolitical relations but also to remind us that theoryand reading strategies are themselves deeply imbricated in speci c histories andpolitics

Our model of intercultural theatre rests on a notion of differentiated hybriditythat works in multiple and sometimes opposing ways19 Postcolonial theory haslong recognized that particular modes of hybridity are pinned to social politicaland economic factors which are conditioned in turn by historical experiencesof cultural encounters Extensive debate about the political purchase of hybridityhas prompted scholars such as Robert Young (1995) to distinguish between twokinds of hybridity organic and intentional Organic hybridity which has beenaligned with creolization and metissage is close to the fusion model oftenmanifestin intercultural theory It results in new cultural practices and identities withoutconscious contestation and serves a stabilizing function in settling cultural dif-ferences In this kind of hybridity agency inheres in cosmopolitanism the abilityto cross between cultures and to master their hybrid forms In contrast intentionalhybridity focuses on the process of negotiation between different practices andpoints of view It is characterized by division and separation and tends to be self-re exive with the negotiation process inevitably pinpointing areas of con ict In

Diagram 4 ProposedModel for Interculturalism

46 LoGilbert

this instance agency hinges on the degree to which cultural forms resist dilutionandor co-option According to Young the two categories of hybridity the in-tentional and the organic can be in operation at the same time resulting in anantithetical movement of coalescence and antagonism This offers a

dialectical model for cultural interaction an organic hybridity which willtend towards fusion in con ict with intentional hybridity which enables acontestatory activity a politicized setting of cultural differences againsteach other dialogically (199522)

Debates about hybridity in postcolonial theory tend to go hand in hand withdiscussions of authenticity Grif ths reminds us that ldquoauthenticityrdquo is a politicallycharged concept rather than a ldquonaturalrdquo or preexisting attribute While it may bepolitically exigent for non-Western peoples to deploy discourses of authenticityin order to bolster their cultural authority in the hands of Western critics andcommentators the sign of the ldquoauthenticrdquo can easily become a fetishized com-modity that grounds the legitimacy of other cultures ldquonot in their practice butin our desirerdquo (Grif ths 199482) That much intercultural theatre has been drivenby an intense interest in harnessing ldquotraditionalrdquo performance forms suggests weshould treat authenticity with caution recognizing that it registers and respondsto hierarchies of power In this context the ability to manipulate markers ofauthenticity becomes another measure of agency

Sites of Intervention

If postcolonialism is to denaturalize the universalist vision of the more egre-gious kinds of interculturalism it must bring into focus such aspects of theatre aslanguage space the body costume and spectatorship as ideologically laden signsystems as well as potential sites of hybridity By brie y outlining politicized waysof reading such sign systems20 we hope in the nal section of this essay to suggestpathways into intercultural projects that resist an unproblematized transfer of cul-ture

On the whole intercultural theatre has tended to favor visual spectacle overlinguistic innovation nevertheless there are signi cant language-based issues thatpertain to both its processes and products An elementary but immensely im-portant question is the matter of whose language is used for everyday commu-nication during the devising and rehearsing of speci c productions The fact thatEnglish has become the lingua franca in an increasingly globalized arts communitygives its native speakers considerable power to substantiate their views andorsecure their particular agendas In this respect we should remember that thewide-scale imposition of imperial languages on non-Western peoples has consti-tuted an insidious form of epistemic violence since the system of values inherentin a language becomes the ldquosystem upon which social economic and politicaldiscourses are groundedrdquo (Ashcroft Grif ths and Tif n 1995283) To ask whosevalues are heard and whose are silenced by the use of speci c languages thereforeseems essential to a more politicized form of interculturalism In addition wemight ask how linguistic translationsare conducted and whose interests they serveDoes the translator function as a negotiator or a type of ldquonative informantrdquo Whathappens to linguistic concepts that resist translation or adaptation In terms oftheatrical product language issues are equally complicated How do staged lan-guages animate one another Which carries the cultural authority What happensto the performative features of verbal enunciation particularly when stories frompredominantly oral cultures are presented How might we reread verbally silencedbodies in different ways

Cross-Cultural Theatre Praxis 47

Since intercultural theatre stages a meeting of cultures in both physical andimaginative realmsmdashthe actual place(s) where a project takes place as well as the ctional spaces represented by the mise-en-scenemdashits spatial semantics also de-mand analysis Space is neither neutral nor homogenous it inevitably colors thoserelationships within its limits especially on the stage where con gurations ofspace take on symbolic meaning We need to ask then how the physical spacemeeting place in ects intercultural collaborationWhose ground are we on Whatare the power relations inscribed in the architectural aspects of that place Howcan theatre provide a space for negotiatingor subverting the relationships its spatialcon gurations foster We also need to examine the ideological assumptions thatinhere in the imaginative space(s) created by the scenography What does the setfor instance convey about the cultures involved in the collaboration Whichactors and characters have access topriority over what spaces Where are theborders between cultures and how are they maintained traversed or brokendown What kind of cultural landscape is suggested by the stagescape

Postcolonial theorizing of geography cartography and spatial history showshow space is constructed in the nexus of power and culture rather than simplyexisting as an ontological category This kind of politicized approach brings intofocus the disjunctive gap between visible space and its ctional referent (what weinfer or imagine from our culturally in ected reading of proxemics) It is thenpossible to explore the rhizomatic potential of interculturalismmdashits ability to makemultiple connections and disconnections between cultural spacesmdashand to createrepresentations that are unbounded and open and potentially resistant to im-perialist forms of closure

The body in intercultural theatre is equally subject to multiple inscriptionsproducing an unstable signi er rather than a totalized identity It is a site of con-vergence for contesting discourses even though it may be marked with the dis-tinctive signs of a particular culture Postcolonial theory aims to foreground theways in which power is inscribed on and negotiated through the body Suchtheory continually questions what is spoken through the body how its languagesoperate and in the service of whose vested interests It maintains that the bodyis not only a site of knowledgepower but also a site of resistance which inElizabeth Groszrsquos words ldquoexerts a recalcitrance and always entails the possibilityof counterstrategic re-inscription [because] it is capable of being self-marked self-represented in alternative waysrdquo (199064) We need then to look at how resis-tance is expressed in relation to performative bodies how those bodies encodedifference and speci city and how they can prevent the universalizing impulseof transculturalism

As categories that are constructed through visible differences race and genderhave particular signi cance in this respect it is important to note however thatthese are complex and even unstable categories being historically conditionedrather than determined solely by biology One of the problems intercultural the-atre often faces is how to avoid essentialist constructions of race and gender whilestill accounting for the irreducible speci city of certain bodies and body behav-iors A common response is to elevate particular roles in source texts to the level ofarchetypes that can then be played by any skilled performer Peter Brookrsquos Ma-habharata has been accused of this approach (Dasgupta 1991 Bharucha 199368ndash87) This process of distillation strips the readable signs of culture from the sourcetext rather than provoke the audience to examine the tensions between partici-pating cultures There is no dialogic interaction instead a speci c body is sub-merged in the archetypal role according to the aesthetic principles of the projectPostcolonial theory warns against the dehistoricizing effects of such distillationprocesses It focuses on analyzing the gap between the material body and what itis supposed to represent This involves examining movement as well as bodily ap-

48 LoGilbert

pearance since as Pavis notes ldquoactors simultaneously reveal the culture of thecommunity where they have trained and where they live and the bodily tech-nique they have acquiredrdquo (19963) Rather than working from principles of ab-straction an intercultural practice informed by postcolonialism would play upcultural differences without attempting to deny the effects of the political econ-omy that underpins the project The hybrid counter-energies that result from theclash between the symbolic space and the culturally inscribed body can then pro-duce ldquoa radical heterogeneity discontinuity [and] the perpetual revolutionof formrdquo(Young 199525)

A politicized reading of costume is similarly necessary to the formulation of amore comprehensive theory about intercultural performance It seems that partof the attraction of interculturalism has to do with the fantasy of stepping intoldquonativerdquo costume in a process of cultural transvestism that does anything butsubvert power hierarchies As Gail Ching-Liang Low argues the fantasy of cross-cultural dressing identi es clothes as a ldquolsquobadge and advertisementrsquo of [the domi-nant culturersquos] ability to cross the class and cultural gaprdquo hence cultural transvestismoffers ldquothe promise of lsquotransgressiversquo pleasure without the penalties of actualchangerdquo (198992ndash93) If such transvestism could be used to draw attention tothe dif culties that inhere in crossing cultural gaps costume would then becomeanother possible site of resistant inscription rather than a conduit for the one-waycultural transfer that currently characterizes certain forms of interculturalismThisis where postcolonial theories about mimicry masquerade and self-consciousconstructions of subjectivity can come into play because they treat costume as amalleable and even ambiguous signi er rather than a transparent sign of particulargender racial social and national identities

Degrees of power and privilege are also embedded in the framing mechanismsthrough which particular elements of a performance are presented to its audi-ence(s) Typically intercultural theatre positions the performance traditions andoractual bodies of ldquootherrdquo cultures as focal points of the Western viewerrsquos specularconsumption and it is through this kind of untroubled and desiring gaze thatrei ed images of cultural difference are validated and circulated on the ldquointer-nationalrdquo arts market If intercultural theatre means to address the potential in-equities involved in Western appropriations of other cultural traditions then itsadherents must conceive of a theatre that somehow engages with its own estab-lished ldquolookingrdquo relations Interventionary frameworks and other metatheatricaldevicesmdashthese might range from direct audience address to self-conscious roleplaying to forum discussionmdashcan be used to problematize the implicitly im-perialist object-relations model of cross-cultural spectatorship Within the self-re exive theatre that we envision the hybridizing of cultural fragments wouldbe far from seamless cultural tensions would not be hidden nor difference nat-uralized

Conclusion

We have attempted to map the eld of cross-cultural theatre as a way of think-ing through its complexities and contradictions Despite our efforts to integratea diverse range of theories and practices into a ldquobig-picturerdquo account of the eldwe are not advocating a totalizing theory of cultural exchange Rather our dis-cussion is designed to enable a strategic way of rethinking the local and context-speci c through the global and vice versa This sort of matrixed model we wouldargue proffers a more nuanced method of actualizing and analyzing the range ofwork that is increasingly becoming a globalized praxis

Our all too brief survey of potential sites of intervention in the practice andinterpretation of intercultural theatre outlines some of the ways in which the

Cross-Cultural Theatre Praxis 49

mise-en-scene can be politicized and the notion of cultural hegemony relativizedIn an age where cultural boundaries are continually traversed and identities arebecoming increasingly hybridized an intercultural theatre practice informed bypostcolonial theory can potentially function as a site where this intersecting ofcultures is both re ected and critiqued Such a practice would align with (thoughnot necessarily replicate) Gomez-Penarsquos formulation of ldquoborder artrdquo in whichthe performerrsquos job is ldquoto trespass bridge interconnect reinterpret remap andrede nerdquo the limits of culture (199612) It is vital that intercultural theatrersquospotential to cross cultures is not co-opted and neutralized by the ldquoweakerrdquo formsof postmodernism which tend to result in an abstract depoliticized and ahis-torical notion of ldquodifferencerdquo or in effect a masked ldquoindifferencerdquo In this re-spect Homi Bhabharsquos clari cation of postcolonial hybridity as based on anagonistic relationship rather than a seamless fusion offers a workable model foran ethics as well as an aesthetics of cross-cultural engagement

Hybrid hyphenations emphasise the incommensurable elements [] as thebasis of cultural identi cations What is at issue is the performative natureof differential identities the regulation and negotiation of those spaces thatare continually contingently ldquoopening outrdquo remaking the boundariesexposing the limits of any claim to a singular or autonomous sign of dif-ferencemdashbe it class gender or race Such assignations of social differ-encesmdashwhere difference is neither One nor the Other but something elsebesides in-betweenmdash nd their agency in [] an interstitial future thatemerges in between the claims of the past and the needs of the present(1994219)

The kind of hyphenated hybridity that Bhabha outlines is already within theconceptual reach of interculturalism It is now time for a more sustained andsystematic engagement with the politics of its production

Notes

1 ldquoAgencyrdquo refers here to the potential to act or perform an action autonomously it registersdegrees of power and knowledge combined since to act autonomously is to understand theideological systems in which one is imbricated

2 For an extended discussion of multiculturalism in Canada Australia and the United Statessee Gunew (199351ndash65)

3 See Bennett (1996144ndash47) for examples of small ldquomrdquo multicultural theatre in which blind-cast productions of Shakespearersquos The Tempest unwittingly reproduced dominant culturalvalues

4 Guillermo Gomez-Pena critiques a similar model of intercultural encounter in his conceptof ldquocorporaterdquo or ldquotransnationalrdquo multiculturalism which he argues characterizes manybusiness and media conglomeratesrsquo current interest in difference Such difference performsthe ldquopassive roles of glossy images and exotic backgroundrdquo and real diversity is ldquo attenedand equalized by high production valuesrdquo (200112)

5 Examples of big ldquoMrdquo multicultural theatre include various projects done by El Teatro Cam-pesino (US) Talawa (Britain) Doppio Teatro and Urban Theatre Projects (Australia) andCahoots Theatre Projects (Canada) Of course there have been numerous projects (espe-cially in non-Western countries) that t within our de nition of multicultural theatre al-though the speci c practitioners involved may not identify their work in this way Examplesinclude projects by Five Arts Centre (Malaysia) William Kentridge and the HandspringPuppet Company (South Africa) Rustom Bharucha (India) and Gomez-Pena (USAMexico)

6 Our identi cation of ghetto and migrant theatres is in uenced by Richard Fotheringhamrsquoswork ([1987] 1992197ndash98)

7 For further explication of community theatre see Baz Kershaw (1992)

50 LoGilbert

8 For some time postcolonial theatre has been well theorized as a conceptual category albeita contested one however in-depth engagement with postcolonialism has been conspicu-ously absent from discussions of cross-cultural performance work in journals such as TDRSimilarly Patrice Pavisrsquos introduction to The Intercultural Performance Reader (1996) virtuallydismisses the eld of postcolonial theatre even though some of the bookrsquos contents clearly t within this grouping

9 Wole Soyinka Derek Walcott and Girish Karnad are the most prominent of a very largeand diverse group of dramatists who might be catagorized as ldquopostcolonialrdquo Well-knownindigenous theatre groups in countries permanently colonized by European powers includeKooemba Jdarra (Australia) Taki Rua Productions (New Zealand) Spiderwoman (USA) andNative Earth Performing Arts (Canada) See Gilbert and Tompkins (1996) for an extendedaccount of the eld

10 See the introduction to Christopher Balmersquos book Decolonizing the Stage Theatrical Syncre-tism and Post-Colonial Drama (1999) for an extended history of the conceptual category ofsyncretic theatre Balme has been the key theorist of this form of cross-cultural performancefor several years though he initially assessed its overarching function as cultural rapproche-ment rather than decolonization andor resistance

11 His notable theatre projects include Tooth of Crime (1973) Mother Courage (1975) The Pro-metheus Project (1983ndash85) and Three Sisters (1995ndash97)

12 The Tales from South Asia project as documented by Sharon Grady and Phillip Zarilli (1994)exhibits most of the features of the collaborative model The stated aims of the projectrsquosinitiators were to

develop a strategy of presentation and representation which engages an audienceandor students in ldquodifferencerdquo without stereotyping essentializing romanticizingthe ldquoother and keeping onersquos audience aware of contestation as a social realityrdquo(Grady and Zarilli 1994169)

13 Similar celebratory responses can be found in Williams (1992) and Wilshire and Wilshire(1989)

14 This position has been described elsewhere as ldquohappy hybridityrdquo (see Lo 2000)15 Schechnerrsquos 1989 article ldquoIntercultural Themesrdquo maps his thinking on the subject up to

the end of the 1980s see his 1996 interview with Pavis for a more recent account16 On a similar note Craig Latrell recently argued for a more complex reading of intercultural

exchange beyond the ldquovictim-victimizer narrativerdquo The non-Western cultures should notbe perceived as passive receivers of Western ideas but rather active manipulators of suchin uences (200045ndash46) His analysis of the speci city of theatrical agency is howeverweakened by the lack of attention to historical speci city and particularly the impact ofcolonialism in Singapore and Indonesia

17 For detailed explanation see Pavis (19924ndash20)18 Pavis adheres to the idea of turning the hourglass over for other perspectives but unlike

his earlier theorization which advocated the reversal as a way for the source culture tomonitor its own process of exchange the latest discussion appears to consolidate the primacyof the dominant culture

At the end of the process when spectators feel themselves buried alive under thesand of signs and symbols they have no other salvation than to give up and turn thehourglass upside down Then the perspective inverts and one must reverse andrelativize the sediments accumulated in the receiving culture and judge them fromthe point of view of alterity and relativity (199618)

19 For a fuller account of various modes of hybridity see Lo (2000152ndash55)20 See Gilbert (199813ndash25) for a more detailed discussion of the ways in which postcolonial

theory can be used to interpret ideological aspects of performance

References

Ambush Benny Sato1989 ldquoPluralism to the Bonerdquo American Theatre 615

Cross-Cultural Theatre Praxis 51

Ang Ien and John Stratton1994 ldquoMulticultural Imagined Communities Cultural Difference and National Iden-

tity in Australia and the USArdquo Continuum The Australian Journal of Media andCulture 8 2124ndash58

Ashcroft Bill Gareth Grif ths and Helen Tif n eds1995 The Post-Colonial Studies Reader London Routledge

Balme Christopher1999 Decolonizing the Stage Theatrical Syncretism and Post-Colonial Drama Oxford Ox-

ford University Press

Barba Eugenio1996 ldquoEurasian Theatrerdquo In The Intercultural Performance Reader edited by Patrice Pav-

ice 217ndash22 London Routledge

Bennett Susan1996 Performing Nostalgia Shifting Shakespeare and the ContemporaryPast LondonRout-

ledge

Bhabha Homi1994 The Location of Culture London Routledge

Bharucha Rustom1993 Theatre and the World Performance and the Politics of Culture London Routledge2000 The Politics of Cultural Practice Thinking through Theatre in an Age of Globalisation

London Athlone Press

Brandon James1990 ldquoContemporary Japanese Theatre Interculturalism and Intraculturalismrdquo In The

Dramatic Touch of Difference Theatre Own and Foreign edited by Erika Fischer-Lichte Michael Gissenwehrer and Josephine Riley 89ndash97 Tubingen Narr

Brown John Russell1998 ldquoTheatrical Pillage in Asia Redirecting the Intercultural Traf crdquo New Theatre

Quarterly 14 539ndash19

Carlson Marvin1990 ldquoPeter Brookrsquos The Mahabharata and Ariane Mnouchkinersquos LrsquoIndiade as Ex-

amples of Contemporary Cross-cultural Theatrerdquo In The Dramatic Touch of Dif-ference Theatre Own and Foreign edited by Erika Fischer-Lichte Michael Gissen-wehrer and Josephine Riley 49ndash56 Tubingen Narr

Carter David1986 ldquoThe Natives Are Getting Restless Nationalism Multiculturalism and Migrant

Writingrdquo Island Magazine 25263ndash8

Chin Daryl1991 ldquoInterculturalism Postmodernism Pluralismrdquo In Interculturalism and Performance

Writings from PAJ edited by Bonnie Marranca and Gautam Dasgupta 83ndash95New York PAJ Publications

Clifford James1994 ldquoDiasporasrdquo Cultural Anthropology 9 3 302ndash38

Dasgupta Gautam1991 ldquoThe Mahabharata Peter Brookrsquos Orientalismrdquo In Interculturalism and Perfor-

mance Writings from PAJ edited by Bonnie Marranca and Gautam Dasgupta 75ndash82 New York PAJ Publications

De Reuck Jenny2000 ldquolsquoThe mirror shattered into tiny piecesrsquo Reading Gender and Culture in the

Japan Foundation Asia Centrersquos LEARrdquo Intersections Online Asian Studies Journal3 6 httpwwwsshemurdocheduauintersectionsissue3jenny3html (12January 2001)

Cross-Cultural Theatre Praxis 37

mediated through Western culture andor economics Ongrsquos ldquoPan-Asianrdquo spec-taculars LEAR (1997) and Desdemona (1999) are cases in point (see De Reuck2000 and Grehan 2000)

One only has to refer to Pavisrsquos The Intercultural Performance Reader (1996) toappreciate the range of approaches encompassed by the term ldquointerculturalismrdquoand the extent to which it evades any neat de nition While attempting to mapdevelopments in the eld The Reader documents diverse positions that fore-ground interculturalism as a contested site for both theory and practice Despitethis apparent diversity there is evidence pointing to interculturalism as a Westernvision of exchange Pavis himself acknowledges this bias explaining that the col-lection was ldquolargely produced by and aimed at a European and Anglo-Americanreadershiprdquo (199625) The privileging of the West is evident in the ways in whichthe essays are grouped within the book for instance the juxtapositioning of PartII titled ldquoIntercultural Performance from the Western Point of Viewrdquo with PartIII ldquoIntercultural Performance from Another Point of Viewrdquo replicates the ldquoWestand the restrdquo binary paradigm and reveals a problematic ideological aporia Putdifferently interculturalism as it has been theorized and documented thus far isalready overdetermined by the West

Although Pavis echoing Erika Fischer-Lichte claims that it is too soon topropose a global theory of interculturalism (19961) there already exists a glob-alizing practice that demands further political and ethical interrogationSimilarlyJulie Holledge and Joanne Tompkins (2000) contend that intercultural theatre istoo varied and process-based to warrant a general theory They opt instead for asite-speci c study of intercultural projects But this reluctance to engage with theldquobig picturerdquo arguably runs the risk of consolidating the ideological premises ofinterculturalism as a Western-dominated form of knowledge production By priv-ileging content speci city the false dichotomy between praxis and theory is main-tained this also has the effect of relegating issues of ethics to the particular andthe ldquoone off rdquo rather than relating these to larger issues of knowledge formationwithin institutional national and global contexts

Our study of a range of intercultural practice and the theoretical discussion ithas generated suggests that the eld can be loosely divided into three subcate-gories

Transcultural theatre aims to transcend culture-speci c codi cation in order toreach a more universal human condition Transcultural directors are interested inparticularities and traditions only insofar as they enable the directors to identifyaspects of commonality rather than difference (Pavis 19966) There are manyvariations to this search for the universal In the case of Peter Brook transcen-dence of the particular is a necessary part of the mythic quest for origins andWestern theatrersquos supposed loss of ldquopurityrdquo This return to sources and the reap-propriation of primitive languages is a metaphysical quest for a truth that holdseverywhere and at any time irrespective of historical or cultural differences InOrghast (1970) for instance Brook attempted to create an original tonal languageby tapping into a primeval consciousness Eugenio Barbarsquos work in ISTA (Inter-national School of Theatre Anthropology) is another form of transculturaltheatrePavis distinguishes Barbarsquos work as ldquopreculturalrdquo it does not aim to identify thecommon origins of cultures in Brookrsquos way but rather seeks what is common toldquoEasternrdquo and ldquoWesternrdquo theatre practitioners before they become individualizedor ldquoacculturatedrdquo in particular traditions and techniques of performance (19967)According to Barba the goal is to compare the work methods of both Easternand Western theatre and ldquoto reach down into a common technical substratumrdquowhich is ldquothe domain of pre-expressivity [] At this pre-expressive level theprinciples are the same even though they nurture the enormous expressive dif-

38 LoGilbert

ferences which exist between one tradition and another one actor and anotherrdquo(1996220) Barba stresses that these principles are analogous to one another ratherthan homologous nevertheless his search for an essence beyond socialization ischaracteristic of the desire to transcend social and cultural ldquotrappingsrdquo in a movetoward a ldquopurerrdquo mode of communication and theatrical presence

Intracultural theatre is Rustom Bharucharsquos term to denote cultural encountersbetween and across speci c communities and regions within the nation-stateMore speci cally in relation to his own ldquointraculturalrdquo work Bharucha pointsto internal diversity within the boundaries of a particular region or nation Thissense of the intracultural has similarities to the multicultural

insofar as they assume either the interaction or the coexistence of regionaland local cultures within the larger framework of the nation-state How-ever while the ldquointrardquo prioritizes the interactivity and translation of di-verse cultures the ldquomultirdquo upholds a notion of cohesiveness (Bharucha20009)

In this way intracultural theatre serves a critical function in challenging ldquoorgan-icist notions of culture by highlighting the deeply fragmented and divided society[] that multicultural rhetoric of the state refuses to acknowledgerdquo (Bharucha20009)

Extracultural theatre refers to theatre exchanges that are conducted along a West-East and North-South axis The converse of intraculturalism this form of inter-culturalism goes back to the modernist pioneers who looked to the non-West torejuvenate Western art Schechner is the best-known contemporary exponent ofthis practice his experimental productions dating back to the late 1960s with thestaging of a West Irian birth ritual in Dionysus in 69 (1968) and subsequentlydeveloping through numerous theatre projects and theoretical essays in the eld11

While extracultural theatre can encompass some forms of transcultural theatre asin Brookrsquos Mahabharata (1985) it also includes intercultural experiments whichdo not aim to relativize or transcend cultural differences but rather to celebrateand even interrogate such differences as a source of cultural empowerment andaesthetic richness As a category of analysis extracultural theatre always begsquestions about the power dynamics inherent in the economic and political lo-cation of the participating cultures even if such questions are evaded in accountsof actual practice

The remainder of this essay will focus primarily on this extracultural form ofintercultural theatre

Modes of Conducting Intercultural Theatre

The range of working methods employed in intercultural theatre can generallybe positioned along a continuum One pole of the continuum is characterizedby a collaborative mode of exchange while the opposite pole is characterized asimperialistic Most intercultural theatre occurs somewhere between these twoextremes and speci c projects may shift along the continuum depending on thephase of cultural production It is vital that the continuum is conceived in pro-cessual rather than xed terms in order to foreground intercultural exchange asa dynamic process rather than a static transaction

Diagram 2 Continuum ofIntercultural Modes

Cross-Cultural Theatre Praxis 39

Collaborative

Intercultural exchange at this end of the continuum tends to emphasize theprocesses and politics of exchange rather than the theatrical product per se Thisform of theatre-making places great importance on cultural negotiations at alllevels from the highly personal and individualistic to the ldquosuperstructuralrdquo andinstitutional Collaborative interculturalism is often community-generated ratherthan market andor state-driven There is less of a focus on maintaining theldquopurityrdquo of the various cultures for exotic display The exchange process is oftenmarked by tension and incommensurability While there is a general desire tomaintain equitable power relations between partners the aim is not to producea harmonious experience of theatre-making but rather to explore the fullness ofcultural exchange in all its contradictions and convergences for all parties Thetheatre product may similarly resist forced synthesis revealing instead both thepositive and negative aspects of the encounter12 Ferdinand Ortizrsquos concept oftransculturation (not to be confused with transculturalism) offers a useful way ofanalyzing collaborative interculturalism by going beyond a model of easy fusionto account for both acquisition and loss at the same time In the transculturationprocess elements of each system of culture are lost in the creation of a thirdsystem Cultural encounter of this kind can be potentially counterhegemonic itallows minor cultures to act on dominant ones rather than merely submit tocultural loss in the transaction (see Taylor 199162ndash63)

Imperialistic

Intercultural exchange at this end of the continuum is often driven by a senseof Western culture as bankrupt and in need of invigoration from the non-WestThe resulting theatre tends to tap into ldquoOtherrdquo cultural traditions that are per-ceived as ldquoauthenticrdquo and uncontaminated by (Western) modernity Interculturalpractice in this mode is largely an aesthetic response to cultural diversity Thereis a discernible difference in agency between partners such inequity is oftenhistorically based and may continue in the present through economic politicaland technological dominance This form of theatre tends to be product-orientedand usually produced for the dominant culturersquos consumption Performances areoften highly spectacular with emphasis placed on the aesthetic and formal qualitiesof the mise-en-scene The intercultural work of practitioners such as ArianeMnouchkine has been described as imperialist though Mnouchkine refutes thischarge preferring to see her appropriations of Asian performing traditions as aform of indebtedness and ldquohomagerdquo Maria Shevtsova defends this position byasserting that Mnouchkine does not purport to use the ldquooriginalrdquo art form andthat her ldquoborrowingrdquo practices should be understood within the logic of herWestern system of aestheticism (1997102)

Responses to Interculturalism

Given the range of intercultural modalities it is not surprising that criticaltheoretical responses are similarly varied Generally speaking most commentatorshave analyzed interculturalism as practice their responses ranging from the ce-lebratory to the highly critical Schechnerrsquos earlier writings about interculturalpractice exemplify many aspects of the celebratory stance13 Schechner refers tothe intercultural experimentations in the US from the 1950s to the mid rsquo70s asa ldquogolden age of innocencerdquo

People didnrsquot question too much whether or not this interculturalism []was a continuation of colonialism a further exploitation of other cultures

40 LoGilbert

There was something simply celebratory about discovering how diversethe world was how many performance genres there were and how wecould enrich our own experience by borrowing stealing exchanging(198219)

This neoliberal embrace of cultural difference celebrates the possibilities of cul-tural fusion and the construction of radical subjectivities beyond national andethnic boundaries Intercultural practice in this sense is deeply imbricated inglobalization and the perceived deterritorialization of social cultural and politicalboundaries for those in the developed world even if this is not often acknowl-edged by the critics and practitioners themselves14 It should be noted thatSchechnerrsquos position has shifted signi cantly since then15 over the last decade inparticular his critical work shows less of a tendency to idealize cross-culturalexchange and a keener awareness of power relations He also acknowledges the

misunderstandings broken languages and failed transactions that occurwhen and where cultures collide overlap or pull away from each otherThese are seen not as obstacles to be overcome but as fertile rifts or erup-tions full of creative potential (19913)

At the other end of the scale is the ethical critique of intercultural practice asinvasive globalization Daryl Chin argues that

Interculturalism hinges on the questions of autonomy and empowermentTo deploy elements from the symbol system of another culture is a verydelicate enterprise In its crudest terms the question is when does thatusage act as cultural imperialism Forcing elements from disparate culturestogether does not seem to be a solution that makes much sense aestheti-cally ethically or philosophically What does that prove that the knowl-edge of other cultures exists That information about other cultures nowis readily available (199194)

For Bharucha likewise interculturalism cannot be separated from a larger his-tory of colonialism and orientalism (see also Dasgupta 1991) He contends thatinterculturalism is an inherently ethnocentric practice which seeks to synthesizecultural difference rather than respect its individual histories

The problem arises [] when the preoccupation with the ldquoself rdquo over-powers the representation of ldquootherrdquo cultures [and] when the Other isnot another but the projection of onersquos ego Then all one has is a glori -cation of the self and a co-option of other cultures in the name of repre-sentation (199328)

John Russell Brown adds

Exchange borrowing trade or looting across major frontiers diminishesany theatre because it transgresses its inherited reliance on the societyfrom which the drama takes its life and for which it was intended to beperformed [] However worthily it is intended intercultural theatricalexchange is in fact a form of pillage and the result is fancy-dress pre-tence or at best the creation of a small zoo in which no creature has itsfull life (199814)

Cross-Cultural Theatre Praxis 41

Such moral critiques while absolutely essential to the politicizing of intercul-turalism risk instigating a kind of paralysis insofar as they suggest that virtuallyno form of theatrical exchange can be ethical16 This position is clearly untenablefor a number of practitioners especially those whose art is derived from (andaims to explore) experiences of cultural hybridity For instance performanceartisttheorist Guillermo Gomez-Pena a self-confessed ldquochild of crisis and cul-tural syncretismrdquo (199338) sees his own work (and the desirable future of Amer-ican theatre) as inevitably pluralistic unavoidably intercultural But he is alsoacutely aware of the implications of intercultural work noting that it is ldquofunda-mental to address relationships of power and assumptions about privilege amongthe participating artists communities and countriesrdquo in order to develop ethicalmodels of theatrical exchange (19969) To facilitate this Gomez-Pena calls for amuch more rigorous public debate about cultural issues in general about equityand diversity about de nitions of ldquomulti- inter- intra- and cross-culturalrdquoabout which encounters between cultures are ldquosymmetrical and desirable andwhich are more reactionaryrdquo (199357) In projects such as Temple of Confessions(1994) A Seminar on Museum Race Relations (1995) and Mexterminator Project(1999)mdashdeliberately provocative works that are at times even ldquounethicalrdquomdashGomez-Pena relentlessly stages aspects of this debate always avoiding de nitiveanswers

Theoretical Models of Interculturalism

While many critics have posed theoretical challenges to the intercultural en-terprise there have been surprisingly few attempts to formulate a comprehensivemodel of intercultural exchange Marvin Carlson has offered a scale consisting ofseven categories of cross-cultural in uence based on ldquopossible relationships be-tween the culturally familiar and the culturally foreignrdquo (199050) While usefulfor differentiating types of projects this scale does not move beyond an essentiallytaxonomic analysis of the eld Fischer-Lichte takes a different tack focusingspeci cally on the adaptation process which she insists follows a model of ldquopro-ductive receptionrdquo rather than one of translation (1997154ndash55) Productive re-ception emphasizes aspects of a performance caused or in uenced by receptionand is aligned in Fischer-Lichtersquos work with the project of revitalizing tired the-atrical practices though she does not elaborate on the precise dynamics involved

Pavis has thus far been the only critic able to sustain a comprehensive modelof intercultural exchange His hourglass model depicts in its upper bowl theforeign or source culture ldquowhich is more or less codi ed and solidi ed in diverseanthropological sociocultural or artistic modelizationsrdquo (19924) This is repre-sented by lters 1 and 2 in the diagram below The ldquograins of culturerdquo trickledown to the lower bowl and are rearranged in the process The lters 3 through11 put in place by the target culture and the observer largely determine the nalformation of the grains17 The model focuses on ldquothe intercultural transfer be-tween source and target culturerdquo as a way of depicting the relativity of the notionof culture and the complicated relationship between partners in the exchange(19925)

Critique of the Hourglass Model

In practice Pavisrsquos hourglass is an accurate model of most intercultural workof the extracultural kind But the modelrsquos strength is also its weakness it cannotaccount for alternative and more collaborative forms of intercultural exchangeDespite Pavisrsquos wariness of a translationcommunication model of intercultural-ism his elaboration of the process of cultural transfer reveals its dependence on

42 LoGilbert

translation theory The main problem with this model is that it assumes a one-way cultural ow based on a hierarchy of privilege even though Pavis attemptsto relativize the power relations by claiming that the hourglass can be turnedupside-down ldquoas soon as the users of a foreign culture ask themselves how theycan communicate their own culture to another target culturerdquo (19925) Thishowever assumes that there is a ldquolevel-playing eldrdquo between the partners in theexchange and does not account for the fact that the bene ts of globalization andthe permeability of cultures and political systems are accessed differentially fordifferent communities and nations

A translation model of interculturalism therefore runs the risk of reproducingstrategies of containment As Tejaswine Niranjana points out

By employing certain modes of representing the othermdashwhich it therebyalso brings into beingmdashtranslation reinforces hegemonic versions of thecolonized helping them acquire the status of what Edward Said calls rep-resentations or objects without history (19923)

Diagram 3 Pavisrsquos hour-glass Model of InterculturalTheatre

Cross-Cultural Theatre Praxis 43

Pavis is not unaware of this danger

If [the hourglass] is only a mill it will blend the source culture destroy itsevery speci city and drop into the lower bowl an inert and deformed sub-stance which will have lost its original modeling without being moldedinto that of the target culture If it is only a funnel it will indiscriminatelyabsorb the initial substance without reshaping it through the series of l-ters or leaving any trace of the original matter (19925)

Having said this however Pavis is unable to account for interculturalism as aprocess of political negotiation For example he argues that the mise-en-sceneas the central site of interculturalism functions as a ldquokind of reglage (lsquo ne-tuningrsquo)rdquo which mediates between different contexts cultural backgrounds andtraditions (19926) ldquoFine-tuningrdquo serves to smooth over differences in ways thatbecome intelligible for the target culture Similarly ldquoreception-adaptersrdquo ( lter8) ll the lacunae in the transfer of cultural content and dissipate the tensions ofincommensurability in order to create a ldquoreadablerdquo text for the target culture

The teleology of the hourglass model ultimately reduces interculturalexchangeto an alimentary process According to this logic the body belongs to the targetculture while the source culture becomes the food which must be digested andassimilated As Pavis notes only the grains that are ldquosuf ciently nerdquo will ldquo owthrough [the hourglass neck] without any troublerdquo (19924) His model cannotaccount for blockage collisions and retroaction as sites of either intervention orresistance In the nal analysis intercultural exchange according to the hourglassmodel is a reductive process which distills cultural difference into essences thatcan be readily absorbed by the target culture While Pavis does acknowledge thein uence of the social context ( lters 10B and 10C) the temporally bound meta-phor of the hourglass suggests that sociohistorical factors rather than in ectingthe entire intercultural process simply constitute the nal lter before the the-atrical product is consumed by the target culture In short the hourglass modelis premised on aesthetics rather than on politics

Pavis does not stray far from this model in his more recent theorization of the eld (1996) proffering instead a more careful schematization of different formsand modes of intercultural practice Although he does acknowledge the proble-matics of power inequities between partners in the exchange noting that ldquotherecan be no sense in which Asian perspectives are always reversible and symmetricalwith those of the Westmdashas a purely functionalist use of the hourglass turnedover and over ad in nitum might lead us naively to believerdquo (19962) there islittle sense that he has revised the translation principles underlying his model18

Pavis takes account of some of the recent ethical critiques of interculturalismandis particularly wary of it being absorbed into a postmodernist form of culturalrelativism Although he claims that ldquoexchange implies a theory and an ethics ofalterityrdquo (199611) he does not foreground the ethical dimension in any discern-ible way Signi cantly Pavis claims that the kind of intercultural practice thatholds the most potential for ldquoresistance against standardization against the Eu-ropeanization of super-productionsrdquo is the ldquointer-corporeal work in which anactor confronts hisher technique and professional identity with those of theothersrdquo (1996150) By locating the potential for agency at this microscopic levelof actor training Pavis reveals the limitations of the hourglass model as an effectivetemplate for a politicized theorization of the entire eld of interculturalism

Matrixing Interculturalism and Postcolonialism

One way of approaching the problems raised by Pavisrsquos model of interculturaltheatre is to consider its mechanisms through the lens of postcolonial theory

44 LoGilbert

Despite their shared concern with the phenomenon of cultural encounter the-ories of interculturalism and postcolonialism have thus far developed as more orless asymmetrical discourses the former having roots in theatre anthropology(viaVictor Turner) and semiotics the latter in literary and cultural studies as well asin psychoanalysis (via Frantz Fanon) and poststructuralism Of the two discoursespostcolonial theory has been the most consistently political taking as its primaryimperative the task of exposing and redressing unequal power relationships be-tween cultures whereas interculturalism has concerned itself more often with theaesthetics of cultural transfer What postcolonial theory offers to current debatesabout interculturalism is a framework for analyzing such thorny issues as agencyhybridity and authenticity issues that lie at the heart of intercultural praxis Withits insistent stress on historicity and speci city postcolonial theory offers ways ofrelocating the dynamics of intercultural theatre within identi able elds of so-ciopolitical and historical relations This contextualizing enables us to ask at anypoint in the production and reception processes of intercultural work questionsabout individual and collective power Whose economic andor political interestsare being served How is the working process represented to the target audienceand why Who is the target audience and how can differences be addressed withinthis constituency How does a speci c intercultural event impact on the widersociopolitical environment

The term ldquointerculturalrdquo suggests an exploration of the interstice betweencultures it draws our attention to the hyphenated third space separating andconnecting different peoples The act of crossing cultures (with reference to Dol-limorersquos notions of travesty hybridity and con ict) should ideally activate bothcentrifugal and centripetal forces in the process of mutual contamination andinteraction This is an aspect which Pavisrsquos unilinear model of interculturalismcannot take into account We would therefore like to propose an alternativemodel of intercultural exchange which for the purposes of this essay focuses onthe ldquobig picturerdquo and uses some of Pavisrsquos categories and terminologies Ourmodel is both a template for an intercultural practice that encourages more mu-tuality and an attempted representation of the mutuality that has already existedat some level even if it has been limited and nonre exive indeed suppressed inmuch theorizing of particular projects Our aim is to adapt what is essentially anappropriativeassimilationist model into a more collaborativenegotiated oneThe model we have in mind draws inspiration from a toy we used to play withas children in both Malaysia and Australia The toy consisted of a piece of elasticstrung through the middle of a plastic disc The elastic string is held at each endwith the disc supported in the center By rotating the hands in a circular motionthe disc is rotated outward Once the disc is rotating the elastic is alternatelytightened and released to continue the spinning of the disc The disc moves ineither direction along the string depending on whether the tension is generatedby the left or the right hand

In our model intercultural exchange is represented as a two-way ow Bothpartners are considered cultural sources while the target culture is positionedalong the continuum between them The location of the target culture is not xed its position remains uid and depending on where and how the exchangeprocess takes place shifts along the continuum For instance if the performancetakes place in the domain of source culture B then the position of the targetculture moves closer to source Brsquos end of the continuum This uidity not onlyforegrounds the dialogic nature of intercultural exchange but also takes into ac-count the possibility of power disparity in the partnership

Both source cultures bring to the theatrical project cultural apparatuses shapedby their respective sociocultural milieu ( lters 1 and 2) and both undergo a seriesof transformations and challenges in the process of exchange ( lters 3 through 9)

Cross-Cultural Theatre Praxis 45

SourceCulture B

1 cultural modeling2 artistic modeling3 work of adaptation4 preparatory work by

actors5 choice of theatrical

form6 artistic modeling of

target culture7 sociological amp

anthropologicalmodeling of targetculture

8 cultural modeling oftarget culture

9 given and anticipatedconsequences

SourceCulture A

cultural modeling

artistic modeling

work of adaptation

preparatory work byactors

choice of theatricalform

artistic modeling oftarget culture

sociological ampanthropologicalmodeling of targetculture

cultural modeling oftarget culture

given and anticipatedconsequences

SociopoliticalContext

InterculturalProcess for

TargetCulture

SociopoliticalContext

1234

5

6

7

8

9

in relation to each other and in anticipation of the target culture Even if thetarget culture is aligned with one of the source cultures both partners still undergoa similar process of ltration and hybridization however differently experiencedPositioned at the tension between source cultures intercultural exchange is char-acterized both by gain and by loss attraction and disavowal This dialogism isrepresented by the centrifugal and centripetal forces indicated in the diagramabove The proposed model locates all intercultural activity within an identi ablesociopolitical context This serves not only to foreground the inseparability ofartistic endeavors from sociopolitical relations but also to remind us that theoryand reading strategies are themselves deeply imbricated in speci c histories andpolitics

Our model of intercultural theatre rests on a notion of differentiated hybriditythat works in multiple and sometimes opposing ways19 Postcolonial theory haslong recognized that particular modes of hybridity are pinned to social politicaland economic factors which are conditioned in turn by historical experiencesof cultural encounters Extensive debate about the political purchase of hybridityhas prompted scholars such as Robert Young (1995) to distinguish between twokinds of hybridity organic and intentional Organic hybridity which has beenaligned with creolization and metissage is close to the fusion model oftenmanifestin intercultural theory It results in new cultural practices and identities withoutconscious contestation and serves a stabilizing function in settling cultural dif-ferences In this kind of hybridity agency inheres in cosmopolitanism the abilityto cross between cultures and to master their hybrid forms In contrast intentionalhybridity focuses on the process of negotiation between different practices andpoints of view It is characterized by division and separation and tends to be self-re exive with the negotiation process inevitably pinpointing areas of con ict In

Diagram 4 ProposedModel for Interculturalism

46 LoGilbert

this instance agency hinges on the degree to which cultural forms resist dilutionandor co-option According to Young the two categories of hybridity the in-tentional and the organic can be in operation at the same time resulting in anantithetical movement of coalescence and antagonism This offers a

dialectical model for cultural interaction an organic hybridity which willtend towards fusion in con ict with intentional hybridity which enables acontestatory activity a politicized setting of cultural differences againsteach other dialogically (199522)

Debates about hybridity in postcolonial theory tend to go hand in hand withdiscussions of authenticity Grif ths reminds us that ldquoauthenticityrdquo is a politicallycharged concept rather than a ldquonaturalrdquo or preexisting attribute While it may bepolitically exigent for non-Western peoples to deploy discourses of authenticityin order to bolster their cultural authority in the hands of Western critics andcommentators the sign of the ldquoauthenticrdquo can easily become a fetishized com-modity that grounds the legitimacy of other cultures ldquonot in their practice butin our desirerdquo (Grif ths 199482) That much intercultural theatre has been drivenby an intense interest in harnessing ldquotraditionalrdquo performance forms suggests weshould treat authenticity with caution recognizing that it registers and respondsto hierarchies of power In this context the ability to manipulate markers ofauthenticity becomes another measure of agency

Sites of Intervention

If postcolonialism is to denaturalize the universalist vision of the more egre-gious kinds of interculturalism it must bring into focus such aspects of theatre aslanguage space the body costume and spectatorship as ideologically laden signsystems as well as potential sites of hybridity By brie y outlining politicized waysof reading such sign systems20 we hope in the nal section of this essay to suggestpathways into intercultural projects that resist an unproblematized transfer of cul-ture

On the whole intercultural theatre has tended to favor visual spectacle overlinguistic innovation nevertheless there are signi cant language-based issues thatpertain to both its processes and products An elementary but immensely im-portant question is the matter of whose language is used for everyday commu-nication during the devising and rehearsing of speci c productions The fact thatEnglish has become the lingua franca in an increasingly globalized arts communitygives its native speakers considerable power to substantiate their views andorsecure their particular agendas In this respect we should remember that thewide-scale imposition of imperial languages on non-Western peoples has consti-tuted an insidious form of epistemic violence since the system of values inherentin a language becomes the ldquosystem upon which social economic and politicaldiscourses are groundedrdquo (Ashcroft Grif ths and Tif n 1995283) To ask whosevalues are heard and whose are silenced by the use of speci c languages thereforeseems essential to a more politicized form of interculturalism In addition wemight ask how linguistic translationsare conducted and whose interests they serveDoes the translator function as a negotiator or a type of ldquonative informantrdquo Whathappens to linguistic concepts that resist translation or adaptation In terms oftheatrical product language issues are equally complicated How do staged lan-guages animate one another Which carries the cultural authority What happensto the performative features of verbal enunciation particularly when stories frompredominantly oral cultures are presented How might we reread verbally silencedbodies in different ways

Cross-Cultural Theatre Praxis 47

Since intercultural theatre stages a meeting of cultures in both physical andimaginative realmsmdashthe actual place(s) where a project takes place as well as the ctional spaces represented by the mise-en-scenemdashits spatial semantics also de-mand analysis Space is neither neutral nor homogenous it inevitably colors thoserelationships within its limits especially on the stage where con gurations ofspace take on symbolic meaning We need to ask then how the physical spacemeeting place in ects intercultural collaborationWhose ground are we on Whatare the power relations inscribed in the architectural aspects of that place Howcan theatre provide a space for negotiatingor subverting the relationships its spatialcon gurations foster We also need to examine the ideological assumptions thatinhere in the imaginative space(s) created by the scenography What does the setfor instance convey about the cultures involved in the collaboration Whichactors and characters have access topriority over what spaces Where are theborders between cultures and how are they maintained traversed or brokendown What kind of cultural landscape is suggested by the stagescape

Postcolonial theorizing of geography cartography and spatial history showshow space is constructed in the nexus of power and culture rather than simplyexisting as an ontological category This kind of politicized approach brings intofocus the disjunctive gap between visible space and its ctional referent (what weinfer or imagine from our culturally in ected reading of proxemics) It is thenpossible to explore the rhizomatic potential of interculturalismmdashits ability to makemultiple connections and disconnections between cultural spacesmdashand to createrepresentations that are unbounded and open and potentially resistant to im-perialist forms of closure

The body in intercultural theatre is equally subject to multiple inscriptionsproducing an unstable signi er rather than a totalized identity It is a site of con-vergence for contesting discourses even though it may be marked with the dis-tinctive signs of a particular culture Postcolonial theory aims to foreground theways in which power is inscribed on and negotiated through the body Suchtheory continually questions what is spoken through the body how its languagesoperate and in the service of whose vested interests It maintains that the bodyis not only a site of knowledgepower but also a site of resistance which inElizabeth Groszrsquos words ldquoexerts a recalcitrance and always entails the possibilityof counterstrategic re-inscription [because] it is capable of being self-marked self-represented in alternative waysrdquo (199064) We need then to look at how resis-tance is expressed in relation to performative bodies how those bodies encodedifference and speci city and how they can prevent the universalizing impulseof transculturalism

As categories that are constructed through visible differences race and genderhave particular signi cance in this respect it is important to note however thatthese are complex and even unstable categories being historically conditionedrather than determined solely by biology One of the problems intercultural the-atre often faces is how to avoid essentialist constructions of race and gender whilestill accounting for the irreducible speci city of certain bodies and body behav-iors A common response is to elevate particular roles in source texts to the level ofarchetypes that can then be played by any skilled performer Peter Brookrsquos Ma-habharata has been accused of this approach (Dasgupta 1991 Bharucha 199368ndash87) This process of distillation strips the readable signs of culture from the sourcetext rather than provoke the audience to examine the tensions between partici-pating cultures There is no dialogic interaction instead a speci c body is sub-merged in the archetypal role according to the aesthetic principles of the projectPostcolonial theory warns against the dehistoricizing effects of such distillationprocesses It focuses on analyzing the gap between the material body and what itis supposed to represent This involves examining movement as well as bodily ap-

48 LoGilbert

pearance since as Pavis notes ldquoactors simultaneously reveal the culture of thecommunity where they have trained and where they live and the bodily tech-nique they have acquiredrdquo (19963) Rather than working from principles of ab-straction an intercultural practice informed by postcolonialism would play upcultural differences without attempting to deny the effects of the political econ-omy that underpins the project The hybrid counter-energies that result from theclash between the symbolic space and the culturally inscribed body can then pro-duce ldquoa radical heterogeneity discontinuity [and] the perpetual revolutionof formrdquo(Young 199525)

A politicized reading of costume is similarly necessary to the formulation of amore comprehensive theory about intercultural performance It seems that partof the attraction of interculturalism has to do with the fantasy of stepping intoldquonativerdquo costume in a process of cultural transvestism that does anything butsubvert power hierarchies As Gail Ching-Liang Low argues the fantasy of cross-cultural dressing identi es clothes as a ldquolsquobadge and advertisementrsquo of [the domi-nant culturersquos] ability to cross the class and cultural gaprdquo hence cultural transvestismoffers ldquothe promise of lsquotransgressiversquo pleasure without the penalties of actualchangerdquo (198992ndash93) If such transvestism could be used to draw attention tothe dif culties that inhere in crossing cultural gaps costume would then becomeanother possible site of resistant inscription rather than a conduit for the one-waycultural transfer that currently characterizes certain forms of interculturalismThisis where postcolonial theories about mimicry masquerade and self-consciousconstructions of subjectivity can come into play because they treat costume as amalleable and even ambiguous signi er rather than a transparent sign of particulargender racial social and national identities

Degrees of power and privilege are also embedded in the framing mechanismsthrough which particular elements of a performance are presented to its audi-ence(s) Typically intercultural theatre positions the performance traditions andoractual bodies of ldquootherrdquo cultures as focal points of the Western viewerrsquos specularconsumption and it is through this kind of untroubled and desiring gaze thatrei ed images of cultural difference are validated and circulated on the ldquointer-nationalrdquo arts market If intercultural theatre means to address the potential in-equities involved in Western appropriations of other cultural traditions then itsadherents must conceive of a theatre that somehow engages with its own estab-lished ldquolookingrdquo relations Interventionary frameworks and other metatheatricaldevicesmdashthese might range from direct audience address to self-conscious roleplaying to forum discussionmdashcan be used to problematize the implicitly im-perialist object-relations model of cross-cultural spectatorship Within the self-re exive theatre that we envision the hybridizing of cultural fragments wouldbe far from seamless cultural tensions would not be hidden nor difference nat-uralized

Conclusion

We have attempted to map the eld of cross-cultural theatre as a way of think-ing through its complexities and contradictions Despite our efforts to integratea diverse range of theories and practices into a ldquobig-picturerdquo account of the eldwe are not advocating a totalizing theory of cultural exchange Rather our dis-cussion is designed to enable a strategic way of rethinking the local and context-speci c through the global and vice versa This sort of matrixed model we wouldargue proffers a more nuanced method of actualizing and analyzing the range ofwork that is increasingly becoming a globalized praxis

Our all too brief survey of potential sites of intervention in the practice andinterpretation of intercultural theatre outlines some of the ways in which the

Cross-Cultural Theatre Praxis 49

mise-en-scene can be politicized and the notion of cultural hegemony relativizedIn an age where cultural boundaries are continually traversed and identities arebecoming increasingly hybridized an intercultural theatre practice informed bypostcolonial theory can potentially function as a site where this intersecting ofcultures is both re ected and critiqued Such a practice would align with (thoughnot necessarily replicate) Gomez-Penarsquos formulation of ldquoborder artrdquo in whichthe performerrsquos job is ldquoto trespass bridge interconnect reinterpret remap andrede nerdquo the limits of culture (199612) It is vital that intercultural theatrersquospotential to cross cultures is not co-opted and neutralized by the ldquoweakerrdquo formsof postmodernism which tend to result in an abstract depoliticized and ahis-torical notion of ldquodifferencerdquo or in effect a masked ldquoindifferencerdquo In this re-spect Homi Bhabharsquos clari cation of postcolonial hybridity as based on anagonistic relationship rather than a seamless fusion offers a workable model foran ethics as well as an aesthetics of cross-cultural engagement

Hybrid hyphenations emphasise the incommensurable elements [] as thebasis of cultural identi cations What is at issue is the performative natureof differential identities the regulation and negotiation of those spaces thatare continually contingently ldquoopening outrdquo remaking the boundariesexposing the limits of any claim to a singular or autonomous sign of dif-ferencemdashbe it class gender or race Such assignations of social differ-encesmdashwhere difference is neither One nor the Other but something elsebesides in-betweenmdash nd their agency in [] an interstitial future thatemerges in between the claims of the past and the needs of the present(1994219)

The kind of hyphenated hybridity that Bhabha outlines is already within theconceptual reach of interculturalism It is now time for a more sustained andsystematic engagement with the politics of its production

Notes

1 ldquoAgencyrdquo refers here to the potential to act or perform an action autonomously it registersdegrees of power and knowledge combined since to act autonomously is to understand theideological systems in which one is imbricated

2 For an extended discussion of multiculturalism in Canada Australia and the United Statessee Gunew (199351ndash65)

3 See Bennett (1996144ndash47) for examples of small ldquomrdquo multicultural theatre in which blind-cast productions of Shakespearersquos The Tempest unwittingly reproduced dominant culturalvalues

4 Guillermo Gomez-Pena critiques a similar model of intercultural encounter in his conceptof ldquocorporaterdquo or ldquotransnationalrdquo multiculturalism which he argues characterizes manybusiness and media conglomeratesrsquo current interest in difference Such difference performsthe ldquopassive roles of glossy images and exotic backgroundrdquo and real diversity is ldquo attenedand equalized by high production valuesrdquo (200112)

5 Examples of big ldquoMrdquo multicultural theatre include various projects done by El Teatro Cam-pesino (US) Talawa (Britain) Doppio Teatro and Urban Theatre Projects (Australia) andCahoots Theatre Projects (Canada) Of course there have been numerous projects (espe-cially in non-Western countries) that t within our de nition of multicultural theatre al-though the speci c practitioners involved may not identify their work in this way Examplesinclude projects by Five Arts Centre (Malaysia) William Kentridge and the HandspringPuppet Company (South Africa) Rustom Bharucha (India) and Gomez-Pena (USAMexico)

6 Our identi cation of ghetto and migrant theatres is in uenced by Richard Fotheringhamrsquoswork ([1987] 1992197ndash98)

7 For further explication of community theatre see Baz Kershaw (1992)

50 LoGilbert

8 For some time postcolonial theatre has been well theorized as a conceptual category albeita contested one however in-depth engagement with postcolonialism has been conspicu-ously absent from discussions of cross-cultural performance work in journals such as TDRSimilarly Patrice Pavisrsquos introduction to The Intercultural Performance Reader (1996) virtuallydismisses the eld of postcolonial theatre even though some of the bookrsquos contents clearly t within this grouping

9 Wole Soyinka Derek Walcott and Girish Karnad are the most prominent of a very largeand diverse group of dramatists who might be catagorized as ldquopostcolonialrdquo Well-knownindigenous theatre groups in countries permanently colonized by European powers includeKooemba Jdarra (Australia) Taki Rua Productions (New Zealand) Spiderwoman (USA) andNative Earth Performing Arts (Canada) See Gilbert and Tompkins (1996) for an extendedaccount of the eld

10 See the introduction to Christopher Balmersquos book Decolonizing the Stage Theatrical Syncre-tism and Post-Colonial Drama (1999) for an extended history of the conceptual category ofsyncretic theatre Balme has been the key theorist of this form of cross-cultural performancefor several years though he initially assessed its overarching function as cultural rapproche-ment rather than decolonization andor resistance

11 His notable theatre projects include Tooth of Crime (1973) Mother Courage (1975) The Pro-metheus Project (1983ndash85) and Three Sisters (1995ndash97)

12 The Tales from South Asia project as documented by Sharon Grady and Phillip Zarilli (1994)exhibits most of the features of the collaborative model The stated aims of the projectrsquosinitiators were to

develop a strategy of presentation and representation which engages an audienceandor students in ldquodifferencerdquo without stereotyping essentializing romanticizingthe ldquoother and keeping onersquos audience aware of contestation as a social realityrdquo(Grady and Zarilli 1994169)

13 Similar celebratory responses can be found in Williams (1992) and Wilshire and Wilshire(1989)

14 This position has been described elsewhere as ldquohappy hybridityrdquo (see Lo 2000)15 Schechnerrsquos 1989 article ldquoIntercultural Themesrdquo maps his thinking on the subject up to

the end of the 1980s see his 1996 interview with Pavis for a more recent account16 On a similar note Craig Latrell recently argued for a more complex reading of intercultural

exchange beyond the ldquovictim-victimizer narrativerdquo The non-Western cultures should notbe perceived as passive receivers of Western ideas but rather active manipulators of suchin uences (200045ndash46) His analysis of the speci city of theatrical agency is howeverweakened by the lack of attention to historical speci city and particularly the impact ofcolonialism in Singapore and Indonesia

17 For detailed explanation see Pavis (19924ndash20)18 Pavis adheres to the idea of turning the hourglass over for other perspectives but unlike

his earlier theorization which advocated the reversal as a way for the source culture tomonitor its own process of exchange the latest discussion appears to consolidate the primacyof the dominant culture

At the end of the process when spectators feel themselves buried alive under thesand of signs and symbols they have no other salvation than to give up and turn thehourglass upside down Then the perspective inverts and one must reverse andrelativize the sediments accumulated in the receiving culture and judge them fromthe point of view of alterity and relativity (199618)

19 For a fuller account of various modes of hybridity see Lo (2000152ndash55)20 See Gilbert (199813ndash25) for a more detailed discussion of the ways in which postcolonial

theory can be used to interpret ideological aspects of performance

References

Ambush Benny Sato1989 ldquoPluralism to the Bonerdquo American Theatre 615

Cross-Cultural Theatre Praxis 51

Ang Ien and John Stratton1994 ldquoMulticultural Imagined Communities Cultural Difference and National Iden-

tity in Australia and the USArdquo Continuum The Australian Journal of Media andCulture 8 2124ndash58

Ashcroft Bill Gareth Grif ths and Helen Tif n eds1995 The Post-Colonial Studies Reader London Routledge

Balme Christopher1999 Decolonizing the Stage Theatrical Syncretism and Post-Colonial Drama Oxford Ox-

ford University Press

Barba Eugenio1996 ldquoEurasian Theatrerdquo In The Intercultural Performance Reader edited by Patrice Pav-

ice 217ndash22 London Routledge

Bennett Susan1996 Performing Nostalgia Shifting Shakespeare and the ContemporaryPast LondonRout-

ledge

Bhabha Homi1994 The Location of Culture London Routledge

Bharucha Rustom1993 Theatre and the World Performance and the Politics of Culture London Routledge2000 The Politics of Cultural Practice Thinking through Theatre in an Age of Globalisation

London Athlone Press

Brandon James1990 ldquoContemporary Japanese Theatre Interculturalism and Intraculturalismrdquo In The

Dramatic Touch of Difference Theatre Own and Foreign edited by Erika Fischer-Lichte Michael Gissenwehrer and Josephine Riley 89ndash97 Tubingen Narr

Brown John Russell1998 ldquoTheatrical Pillage in Asia Redirecting the Intercultural Traf crdquo New Theatre

Quarterly 14 539ndash19

Carlson Marvin1990 ldquoPeter Brookrsquos The Mahabharata and Ariane Mnouchkinersquos LrsquoIndiade as Ex-

amples of Contemporary Cross-cultural Theatrerdquo In The Dramatic Touch of Dif-ference Theatre Own and Foreign edited by Erika Fischer-Lichte Michael Gissen-wehrer and Josephine Riley 49ndash56 Tubingen Narr

Carter David1986 ldquoThe Natives Are Getting Restless Nationalism Multiculturalism and Migrant

Writingrdquo Island Magazine 25263ndash8

Chin Daryl1991 ldquoInterculturalism Postmodernism Pluralismrdquo In Interculturalism and Performance

Writings from PAJ edited by Bonnie Marranca and Gautam Dasgupta 83ndash95New York PAJ Publications

Clifford James1994 ldquoDiasporasrdquo Cultural Anthropology 9 3 302ndash38

Dasgupta Gautam1991 ldquoThe Mahabharata Peter Brookrsquos Orientalismrdquo In Interculturalism and Perfor-

mance Writings from PAJ edited by Bonnie Marranca and Gautam Dasgupta 75ndash82 New York PAJ Publications

De Reuck Jenny2000 ldquolsquoThe mirror shattered into tiny piecesrsquo Reading Gender and Culture in the

Japan Foundation Asia Centrersquos LEARrdquo Intersections Online Asian Studies Journal3 6 httpwwwsshemurdocheduauintersectionsissue3jenny3html (12January 2001)

38 LoGilbert

ferences which exist between one tradition and another one actor and anotherrdquo(1996220) Barba stresses that these principles are analogous to one another ratherthan homologous nevertheless his search for an essence beyond socialization ischaracteristic of the desire to transcend social and cultural ldquotrappingsrdquo in a movetoward a ldquopurerrdquo mode of communication and theatrical presence

Intracultural theatre is Rustom Bharucharsquos term to denote cultural encountersbetween and across speci c communities and regions within the nation-stateMore speci cally in relation to his own ldquointraculturalrdquo work Bharucha pointsto internal diversity within the boundaries of a particular region or nation Thissense of the intracultural has similarities to the multicultural

insofar as they assume either the interaction or the coexistence of regionaland local cultures within the larger framework of the nation-state How-ever while the ldquointrardquo prioritizes the interactivity and translation of di-verse cultures the ldquomultirdquo upholds a notion of cohesiveness (Bharucha20009)

In this way intracultural theatre serves a critical function in challenging ldquoorgan-icist notions of culture by highlighting the deeply fragmented and divided society[] that multicultural rhetoric of the state refuses to acknowledgerdquo (Bharucha20009)

Extracultural theatre refers to theatre exchanges that are conducted along a West-East and North-South axis The converse of intraculturalism this form of inter-culturalism goes back to the modernist pioneers who looked to the non-West torejuvenate Western art Schechner is the best-known contemporary exponent ofthis practice his experimental productions dating back to the late 1960s with thestaging of a West Irian birth ritual in Dionysus in 69 (1968) and subsequentlydeveloping through numerous theatre projects and theoretical essays in the eld11

While extracultural theatre can encompass some forms of transcultural theatre asin Brookrsquos Mahabharata (1985) it also includes intercultural experiments whichdo not aim to relativize or transcend cultural differences but rather to celebrateand even interrogate such differences as a source of cultural empowerment andaesthetic richness As a category of analysis extracultural theatre always begsquestions about the power dynamics inherent in the economic and political lo-cation of the participating cultures even if such questions are evaded in accountsof actual practice

The remainder of this essay will focus primarily on this extracultural form ofintercultural theatre

Modes of Conducting Intercultural Theatre

The range of working methods employed in intercultural theatre can generallybe positioned along a continuum One pole of the continuum is characterizedby a collaborative mode of exchange while the opposite pole is characterized asimperialistic Most intercultural theatre occurs somewhere between these twoextremes and speci c projects may shift along the continuum depending on thephase of cultural production It is vital that the continuum is conceived in pro-cessual rather than xed terms in order to foreground intercultural exchange asa dynamic process rather than a static transaction

Diagram 2 Continuum ofIntercultural Modes

Cross-Cultural Theatre Praxis 39

Collaborative

Intercultural exchange at this end of the continuum tends to emphasize theprocesses and politics of exchange rather than the theatrical product per se Thisform of theatre-making places great importance on cultural negotiations at alllevels from the highly personal and individualistic to the ldquosuperstructuralrdquo andinstitutional Collaborative interculturalism is often community-generated ratherthan market andor state-driven There is less of a focus on maintaining theldquopurityrdquo of the various cultures for exotic display The exchange process is oftenmarked by tension and incommensurability While there is a general desire tomaintain equitable power relations between partners the aim is not to producea harmonious experience of theatre-making but rather to explore the fullness ofcultural exchange in all its contradictions and convergences for all parties Thetheatre product may similarly resist forced synthesis revealing instead both thepositive and negative aspects of the encounter12 Ferdinand Ortizrsquos concept oftransculturation (not to be confused with transculturalism) offers a useful way ofanalyzing collaborative interculturalism by going beyond a model of easy fusionto account for both acquisition and loss at the same time In the transculturationprocess elements of each system of culture are lost in the creation of a thirdsystem Cultural encounter of this kind can be potentially counterhegemonic itallows minor cultures to act on dominant ones rather than merely submit tocultural loss in the transaction (see Taylor 199162ndash63)

Imperialistic

Intercultural exchange at this end of the continuum is often driven by a senseof Western culture as bankrupt and in need of invigoration from the non-WestThe resulting theatre tends to tap into ldquoOtherrdquo cultural traditions that are per-ceived as ldquoauthenticrdquo and uncontaminated by (Western) modernity Interculturalpractice in this mode is largely an aesthetic response to cultural diversity Thereis a discernible difference in agency between partners such inequity is oftenhistorically based and may continue in the present through economic politicaland technological dominance This form of theatre tends to be product-orientedand usually produced for the dominant culturersquos consumption Performances areoften highly spectacular with emphasis placed on the aesthetic and formal qualitiesof the mise-en-scene The intercultural work of practitioners such as ArianeMnouchkine has been described as imperialist though Mnouchkine refutes thischarge preferring to see her appropriations of Asian performing traditions as aform of indebtedness and ldquohomagerdquo Maria Shevtsova defends this position byasserting that Mnouchkine does not purport to use the ldquooriginalrdquo art form andthat her ldquoborrowingrdquo practices should be understood within the logic of herWestern system of aestheticism (1997102)

Responses to Interculturalism

Given the range of intercultural modalities it is not surprising that criticaltheoretical responses are similarly varied Generally speaking most commentatorshave analyzed interculturalism as practice their responses ranging from the ce-lebratory to the highly critical Schechnerrsquos earlier writings about interculturalpractice exemplify many aspects of the celebratory stance13 Schechner refers tothe intercultural experimentations in the US from the 1950s to the mid rsquo70s asa ldquogolden age of innocencerdquo

People didnrsquot question too much whether or not this interculturalism []was a continuation of colonialism a further exploitation of other cultures

40 LoGilbert

There was something simply celebratory about discovering how diversethe world was how many performance genres there were and how wecould enrich our own experience by borrowing stealing exchanging(198219)

This neoliberal embrace of cultural difference celebrates the possibilities of cul-tural fusion and the construction of radical subjectivities beyond national andethnic boundaries Intercultural practice in this sense is deeply imbricated inglobalization and the perceived deterritorialization of social cultural and politicalboundaries for those in the developed world even if this is not often acknowl-edged by the critics and practitioners themselves14 It should be noted thatSchechnerrsquos position has shifted signi cantly since then15 over the last decade inparticular his critical work shows less of a tendency to idealize cross-culturalexchange and a keener awareness of power relations He also acknowledges the

misunderstandings broken languages and failed transactions that occurwhen and where cultures collide overlap or pull away from each otherThese are seen not as obstacles to be overcome but as fertile rifts or erup-tions full of creative potential (19913)

At the other end of the scale is the ethical critique of intercultural practice asinvasive globalization Daryl Chin argues that

Interculturalism hinges on the questions of autonomy and empowermentTo deploy elements from the symbol system of another culture is a verydelicate enterprise In its crudest terms the question is when does thatusage act as cultural imperialism Forcing elements from disparate culturestogether does not seem to be a solution that makes much sense aestheti-cally ethically or philosophically What does that prove that the knowl-edge of other cultures exists That information about other cultures nowis readily available (199194)

For Bharucha likewise interculturalism cannot be separated from a larger his-tory of colonialism and orientalism (see also Dasgupta 1991) He contends thatinterculturalism is an inherently ethnocentric practice which seeks to synthesizecultural difference rather than respect its individual histories

The problem arises [] when the preoccupation with the ldquoself rdquo over-powers the representation of ldquootherrdquo cultures [and] when the Other isnot another but the projection of onersquos ego Then all one has is a glori -cation of the self and a co-option of other cultures in the name of repre-sentation (199328)

John Russell Brown adds

Exchange borrowing trade or looting across major frontiers diminishesany theatre because it transgresses its inherited reliance on the societyfrom which the drama takes its life and for which it was intended to beperformed [] However worthily it is intended intercultural theatricalexchange is in fact a form of pillage and the result is fancy-dress pre-tence or at best the creation of a small zoo in which no creature has itsfull life (199814)

Cross-Cultural Theatre Praxis 41

Such moral critiques while absolutely essential to the politicizing of intercul-turalism risk instigating a kind of paralysis insofar as they suggest that virtuallyno form of theatrical exchange can be ethical16 This position is clearly untenablefor a number of practitioners especially those whose art is derived from (andaims to explore) experiences of cultural hybridity For instance performanceartisttheorist Guillermo Gomez-Pena a self-confessed ldquochild of crisis and cul-tural syncretismrdquo (199338) sees his own work (and the desirable future of Amer-ican theatre) as inevitably pluralistic unavoidably intercultural But he is alsoacutely aware of the implications of intercultural work noting that it is ldquofunda-mental to address relationships of power and assumptions about privilege amongthe participating artists communities and countriesrdquo in order to develop ethicalmodels of theatrical exchange (19969) To facilitate this Gomez-Pena calls for amuch more rigorous public debate about cultural issues in general about equityand diversity about de nitions of ldquomulti- inter- intra- and cross-culturalrdquoabout which encounters between cultures are ldquosymmetrical and desirable andwhich are more reactionaryrdquo (199357) In projects such as Temple of Confessions(1994) A Seminar on Museum Race Relations (1995) and Mexterminator Project(1999)mdashdeliberately provocative works that are at times even ldquounethicalrdquomdashGomez-Pena relentlessly stages aspects of this debate always avoiding de nitiveanswers

Theoretical Models of Interculturalism

While many critics have posed theoretical challenges to the intercultural en-terprise there have been surprisingly few attempts to formulate a comprehensivemodel of intercultural exchange Marvin Carlson has offered a scale consisting ofseven categories of cross-cultural in uence based on ldquopossible relationships be-tween the culturally familiar and the culturally foreignrdquo (199050) While usefulfor differentiating types of projects this scale does not move beyond an essentiallytaxonomic analysis of the eld Fischer-Lichte takes a different tack focusingspeci cally on the adaptation process which she insists follows a model of ldquopro-ductive receptionrdquo rather than one of translation (1997154ndash55) Productive re-ception emphasizes aspects of a performance caused or in uenced by receptionand is aligned in Fischer-Lichtersquos work with the project of revitalizing tired the-atrical practices though she does not elaborate on the precise dynamics involved

Pavis has thus far been the only critic able to sustain a comprehensive modelof intercultural exchange His hourglass model depicts in its upper bowl theforeign or source culture ldquowhich is more or less codi ed and solidi ed in diverseanthropological sociocultural or artistic modelizationsrdquo (19924) This is repre-sented by lters 1 and 2 in the diagram below The ldquograins of culturerdquo trickledown to the lower bowl and are rearranged in the process The lters 3 through11 put in place by the target culture and the observer largely determine the nalformation of the grains17 The model focuses on ldquothe intercultural transfer be-tween source and target culturerdquo as a way of depicting the relativity of the notionof culture and the complicated relationship between partners in the exchange(19925)

Critique of the Hourglass Model

In practice Pavisrsquos hourglass is an accurate model of most intercultural workof the extracultural kind But the modelrsquos strength is also its weakness it cannotaccount for alternative and more collaborative forms of intercultural exchangeDespite Pavisrsquos wariness of a translationcommunication model of intercultural-ism his elaboration of the process of cultural transfer reveals its dependence on

42 LoGilbert

translation theory The main problem with this model is that it assumes a one-way cultural ow based on a hierarchy of privilege even though Pavis attemptsto relativize the power relations by claiming that the hourglass can be turnedupside-down ldquoas soon as the users of a foreign culture ask themselves how theycan communicate their own culture to another target culturerdquo (19925) Thishowever assumes that there is a ldquolevel-playing eldrdquo between the partners in theexchange and does not account for the fact that the bene ts of globalization andthe permeability of cultures and political systems are accessed differentially fordifferent communities and nations

A translation model of interculturalism therefore runs the risk of reproducingstrategies of containment As Tejaswine Niranjana points out

By employing certain modes of representing the othermdashwhich it therebyalso brings into beingmdashtranslation reinforces hegemonic versions of thecolonized helping them acquire the status of what Edward Said calls rep-resentations or objects without history (19923)

Diagram 3 Pavisrsquos hour-glass Model of InterculturalTheatre

Cross-Cultural Theatre Praxis 43

Pavis is not unaware of this danger

If [the hourglass] is only a mill it will blend the source culture destroy itsevery speci city and drop into the lower bowl an inert and deformed sub-stance which will have lost its original modeling without being moldedinto that of the target culture If it is only a funnel it will indiscriminatelyabsorb the initial substance without reshaping it through the series of l-ters or leaving any trace of the original matter (19925)

Having said this however Pavis is unable to account for interculturalism as aprocess of political negotiation For example he argues that the mise-en-sceneas the central site of interculturalism functions as a ldquokind of reglage (lsquo ne-tuningrsquo)rdquo which mediates between different contexts cultural backgrounds andtraditions (19926) ldquoFine-tuningrdquo serves to smooth over differences in ways thatbecome intelligible for the target culture Similarly ldquoreception-adaptersrdquo ( lter8) ll the lacunae in the transfer of cultural content and dissipate the tensions ofincommensurability in order to create a ldquoreadablerdquo text for the target culture

The teleology of the hourglass model ultimately reduces interculturalexchangeto an alimentary process According to this logic the body belongs to the targetculture while the source culture becomes the food which must be digested andassimilated As Pavis notes only the grains that are ldquosuf ciently nerdquo will ldquo owthrough [the hourglass neck] without any troublerdquo (19924) His model cannotaccount for blockage collisions and retroaction as sites of either intervention orresistance In the nal analysis intercultural exchange according to the hourglassmodel is a reductive process which distills cultural difference into essences thatcan be readily absorbed by the target culture While Pavis does acknowledge thein uence of the social context ( lters 10B and 10C) the temporally bound meta-phor of the hourglass suggests that sociohistorical factors rather than in ectingthe entire intercultural process simply constitute the nal lter before the the-atrical product is consumed by the target culture In short the hourglass modelis premised on aesthetics rather than on politics

Pavis does not stray far from this model in his more recent theorization of the eld (1996) proffering instead a more careful schematization of different formsand modes of intercultural practice Although he does acknowledge the proble-matics of power inequities between partners in the exchange noting that ldquotherecan be no sense in which Asian perspectives are always reversible and symmetricalwith those of the Westmdashas a purely functionalist use of the hourglass turnedover and over ad in nitum might lead us naively to believerdquo (19962) there islittle sense that he has revised the translation principles underlying his model18

Pavis takes account of some of the recent ethical critiques of interculturalismandis particularly wary of it being absorbed into a postmodernist form of culturalrelativism Although he claims that ldquoexchange implies a theory and an ethics ofalterityrdquo (199611) he does not foreground the ethical dimension in any discern-ible way Signi cantly Pavis claims that the kind of intercultural practice thatholds the most potential for ldquoresistance against standardization against the Eu-ropeanization of super-productionsrdquo is the ldquointer-corporeal work in which anactor confronts hisher technique and professional identity with those of theothersrdquo (1996150) By locating the potential for agency at this microscopic levelof actor training Pavis reveals the limitations of the hourglass model as an effectivetemplate for a politicized theorization of the entire eld of interculturalism

Matrixing Interculturalism and Postcolonialism

One way of approaching the problems raised by Pavisrsquos model of interculturaltheatre is to consider its mechanisms through the lens of postcolonial theory

44 LoGilbert

Despite their shared concern with the phenomenon of cultural encounter the-ories of interculturalism and postcolonialism have thus far developed as more orless asymmetrical discourses the former having roots in theatre anthropology(viaVictor Turner) and semiotics the latter in literary and cultural studies as well asin psychoanalysis (via Frantz Fanon) and poststructuralism Of the two discoursespostcolonial theory has been the most consistently political taking as its primaryimperative the task of exposing and redressing unequal power relationships be-tween cultures whereas interculturalism has concerned itself more often with theaesthetics of cultural transfer What postcolonial theory offers to current debatesabout interculturalism is a framework for analyzing such thorny issues as agencyhybridity and authenticity issues that lie at the heart of intercultural praxis Withits insistent stress on historicity and speci city postcolonial theory offers ways ofrelocating the dynamics of intercultural theatre within identi able elds of so-ciopolitical and historical relations This contextualizing enables us to ask at anypoint in the production and reception processes of intercultural work questionsabout individual and collective power Whose economic andor political interestsare being served How is the working process represented to the target audienceand why Who is the target audience and how can differences be addressed withinthis constituency How does a speci c intercultural event impact on the widersociopolitical environment

The term ldquointerculturalrdquo suggests an exploration of the interstice betweencultures it draws our attention to the hyphenated third space separating andconnecting different peoples The act of crossing cultures (with reference to Dol-limorersquos notions of travesty hybridity and con ict) should ideally activate bothcentrifugal and centripetal forces in the process of mutual contamination andinteraction This is an aspect which Pavisrsquos unilinear model of interculturalismcannot take into account We would therefore like to propose an alternativemodel of intercultural exchange which for the purposes of this essay focuses onthe ldquobig picturerdquo and uses some of Pavisrsquos categories and terminologies Ourmodel is both a template for an intercultural practice that encourages more mu-tuality and an attempted representation of the mutuality that has already existedat some level even if it has been limited and nonre exive indeed suppressed inmuch theorizing of particular projects Our aim is to adapt what is essentially anappropriativeassimilationist model into a more collaborativenegotiated oneThe model we have in mind draws inspiration from a toy we used to play withas children in both Malaysia and Australia The toy consisted of a piece of elasticstrung through the middle of a plastic disc The elastic string is held at each endwith the disc supported in the center By rotating the hands in a circular motionthe disc is rotated outward Once the disc is rotating the elastic is alternatelytightened and released to continue the spinning of the disc The disc moves ineither direction along the string depending on whether the tension is generatedby the left or the right hand

In our model intercultural exchange is represented as a two-way ow Bothpartners are considered cultural sources while the target culture is positionedalong the continuum between them The location of the target culture is not xed its position remains uid and depending on where and how the exchangeprocess takes place shifts along the continuum For instance if the performancetakes place in the domain of source culture B then the position of the targetculture moves closer to source Brsquos end of the continuum This uidity not onlyforegrounds the dialogic nature of intercultural exchange but also takes into ac-count the possibility of power disparity in the partnership

Both source cultures bring to the theatrical project cultural apparatuses shapedby their respective sociocultural milieu ( lters 1 and 2) and both undergo a seriesof transformations and challenges in the process of exchange ( lters 3 through 9)

Cross-Cultural Theatre Praxis 45

SourceCulture B

1 cultural modeling2 artistic modeling3 work of adaptation4 preparatory work by

actors5 choice of theatrical

form6 artistic modeling of

target culture7 sociological amp

anthropologicalmodeling of targetculture

8 cultural modeling oftarget culture

9 given and anticipatedconsequences

SourceCulture A

cultural modeling

artistic modeling

work of adaptation

preparatory work byactors

choice of theatricalform

artistic modeling oftarget culture

sociological ampanthropologicalmodeling of targetculture

cultural modeling oftarget culture

given and anticipatedconsequences

SociopoliticalContext

InterculturalProcess for

TargetCulture

SociopoliticalContext

1234

5

6

7

8

9

in relation to each other and in anticipation of the target culture Even if thetarget culture is aligned with one of the source cultures both partners still undergoa similar process of ltration and hybridization however differently experiencedPositioned at the tension between source cultures intercultural exchange is char-acterized both by gain and by loss attraction and disavowal This dialogism isrepresented by the centrifugal and centripetal forces indicated in the diagramabove The proposed model locates all intercultural activity within an identi ablesociopolitical context This serves not only to foreground the inseparability ofartistic endeavors from sociopolitical relations but also to remind us that theoryand reading strategies are themselves deeply imbricated in speci c histories andpolitics

Our model of intercultural theatre rests on a notion of differentiated hybriditythat works in multiple and sometimes opposing ways19 Postcolonial theory haslong recognized that particular modes of hybridity are pinned to social politicaland economic factors which are conditioned in turn by historical experiencesof cultural encounters Extensive debate about the political purchase of hybridityhas prompted scholars such as Robert Young (1995) to distinguish between twokinds of hybridity organic and intentional Organic hybridity which has beenaligned with creolization and metissage is close to the fusion model oftenmanifestin intercultural theory It results in new cultural practices and identities withoutconscious contestation and serves a stabilizing function in settling cultural dif-ferences In this kind of hybridity agency inheres in cosmopolitanism the abilityto cross between cultures and to master their hybrid forms In contrast intentionalhybridity focuses on the process of negotiation between different practices andpoints of view It is characterized by division and separation and tends to be self-re exive with the negotiation process inevitably pinpointing areas of con ict In

Diagram 4 ProposedModel for Interculturalism

46 LoGilbert

this instance agency hinges on the degree to which cultural forms resist dilutionandor co-option According to Young the two categories of hybridity the in-tentional and the organic can be in operation at the same time resulting in anantithetical movement of coalescence and antagonism This offers a

dialectical model for cultural interaction an organic hybridity which willtend towards fusion in con ict with intentional hybridity which enables acontestatory activity a politicized setting of cultural differences againsteach other dialogically (199522)

Debates about hybridity in postcolonial theory tend to go hand in hand withdiscussions of authenticity Grif ths reminds us that ldquoauthenticityrdquo is a politicallycharged concept rather than a ldquonaturalrdquo or preexisting attribute While it may bepolitically exigent for non-Western peoples to deploy discourses of authenticityin order to bolster their cultural authority in the hands of Western critics andcommentators the sign of the ldquoauthenticrdquo can easily become a fetishized com-modity that grounds the legitimacy of other cultures ldquonot in their practice butin our desirerdquo (Grif ths 199482) That much intercultural theatre has been drivenby an intense interest in harnessing ldquotraditionalrdquo performance forms suggests weshould treat authenticity with caution recognizing that it registers and respondsto hierarchies of power In this context the ability to manipulate markers ofauthenticity becomes another measure of agency

Sites of Intervention

If postcolonialism is to denaturalize the universalist vision of the more egre-gious kinds of interculturalism it must bring into focus such aspects of theatre aslanguage space the body costume and spectatorship as ideologically laden signsystems as well as potential sites of hybridity By brie y outlining politicized waysof reading such sign systems20 we hope in the nal section of this essay to suggestpathways into intercultural projects that resist an unproblematized transfer of cul-ture

On the whole intercultural theatre has tended to favor visual spectacle overlinguistic innovation nevertheless there are signi cant language-based issues thatpertain to both its processes and products An elementary but immensely im-portant question is the matter of whose language is used for everyday commu-nication during the devising and rehearsing of speci c productions The fact thatEnglish has become the lingua franca in an increasingly globalized arts communitygives its native speakers considerable power to substantiate their views andorsecure their particular agendas In this respect we should remember that thewide-scale imposition of imperial languages on non-Western peoples has consti-tuted an insidious form of epistemic violence since the system of values inherentin a language becomes the ldquosystem upon which social economic and politicaldiscourses are groundedrdquo (Ashcroft Grif ths and Tif n 1995283) To ask whosevalues are heard and whose are silenced by the use of speci c languages thereforeseems essential to a more politicized form of interculturalism In addition wemight ask how linguistic translationsare conducted and whose interests they serveDoes the translator function as a negotiator or a type of ldquonative informantrdquo Whathappens to linguistic concepts that resist translation or adaptation In terms oftheatrical product language issues are equally complicated How do staged lan-guages animate one another Which carries the cultural authority What happensto the performative features of verbal enunciation particularly when stories frompredominantly oral cultures are presented How might we reread verbally silencedbodies in different ways

Cross-Cultural Theatre Praxis 47

Since intercultural theatre stages a meeting of cultures in both physical andimaginative realmsmdashthe actual place(s) where a project takes place as well as the ctional spaces represented by the mise-en-scenemdashits spatial semantics also de-mand analysis Space is neither neutral nor homogenous it inevitably colors thoserelationships within its limits especially on the stage where con gurations ofspace take on symbolic meaning We need to ask then how the physical spacemeeting place in ects intercultural collaborationWhose ground are we on Whatare the power relations inscribed in the architectural aspects of that place Howcan theatre provide a space for negotiatingor subverting the relationships its spatialcon gurations foster We also need to examine the ideological assumptions thatinhere in the imaginative space(s) created by the scenography What does the setfor instance convey about the cultures involved in the collaboration Whichactors and characters have access topriority over what spaces Where are theborders between cultures and how are they maintained traversed or brokendown What kind of cultural landscape is suggested by the stagescape

Postcolonial theorizing of geography cartography and spatial history showshow space is constructed in the nexus of power and culture rather than simplyexisting as an ontological category This kind of politicized approach brings intofocus the disjunctive gap between visible space and its ctional referent (what weinfer or imagine from our culturally in ected reading of proxemics) It is thenpossible to explore the rhizomatic potential of interculturalismmdashits ability to makemultiple connections and disconnections between cultural spacesmdashand to createrepresentations that are unbounded and open and potentially resistant to im-perialist forms of closure

The body in intercultural theatre is equally subject to multiple inscriptionsproducing an unstable signi er rather than a totalized identity It is a site of con-vergence for contesting discourses even though it may be marked with the dis-tinctive signs of a particular culture Postcolonial theory aims to foreground theways in which power is inscribed on and negotiated through the body Suchtheory continually questions what is spoken through the body how its languagesoperate and in the service of whose vested interests It maintains that the bodyis not only a site of knowledgepower but also a site of resistance which inElizabeth Groszrsquos words ldquoexerts a recalcitrance and always entails the possibilityof counterstrategic re-inscription [because] it is capable of being self-marked self-represented in alternative waysrdquo (199064) We need then to look at how resis-tance is expressed in relation to performative bodies how those bodies encodedifference and speci city and how they can prevent the universalizing impulseof transculturalism

As categories that are constructed through visible differences race and genderhave particular signi cance in this respect it is important to note however thatthese are complex and even unstable categories being historically conditionedrather than determined solely by biology One of the problems intercultural the-atre often faces is how to avoid essentialist constructions of race and gender whilestill accounting for the irreducible speci city of certain bodies and body behav-iors A common response is to elevate particular roles in source texts to the level ofarchetypes that can then be played by any skilled performer Peter Brookrsquos Ma-habharata has been accused of this approach (Dasgupta 1991 Bharucha 199368ndash87) This process of distillation strips the readable signs of culture from the sourcetext rather than provoke the audience to examine the tensions between partici-pating cultures There is no dialogic interaction instead a speci c body is sub-merged in the archetypal role according to the aesthetic principles of the projectPostcolonial theory warns against the dehistoricizing effects of such distillationprocesses It focuses on analyzing the gap between the material body and what itis supposed to represent This involves examining movement as well as bodily ap-

48 LoGilbert

pearance since as Pavis notes ldquoactors simultaneously reveal the culture of thecommunity where they have trained and where they live and the bodily tech-nique they have acquiredrdquo (19963) Rather than working from principles of ab-straction an intercultural practice informed by postcolonialism would play upcultural differences without attempting to deny the effects of the political econ-omy that underpins the project The hybrid counter-energies that result from theclash between the symbolic space and the culturally inscribed body can then pro-duce ldquoa radical heterogeneity discontinuity [and] the perpetual revolutionof formrdquo(Young 199525)

A politicized reading of costume is similarly necessary to the formulation of amore comprehensive theory about intercultural performance It seems that partof the attraction of interculturalism has to do with the fantasy of stepping intoldquonativerdquo costume in a process of cultural transvestism that does anything butsubvert power hierarchies As Gail Ching-Liang Low argues the fantasy of cross-cultural dressing identi es clothes as a ldquolsquobadge and advertisementrsquo of [the domi-nant culturersquos] ability to cross the class and cultural gaprdquo hence cultural transvestismoffers ldquothe promise of lsquotransgressiversquo pleasure without the penalties of actualchangerdquo (198992ndash93) If such transvestism could be used to draw attention tothe dif culties that inhere in crossing cultural gaps costume would then becomeanother possible site of resistant inscription rather than a conduit for the one-waycultural transfer that currently characterizes certain forms of interculturalismThisis where postcolonial theories about mimicry masquerade and self-consciousconstructions of subjectivity can come into play because they treat costume as amalleable and even ambiguous signi er rather than a transparent sign of particulargender racial social and national identities

Degrees of power and privilege are also embedded in the framing mechanismsthrough which particular elements of a performance are presented to its audi-ence(s) Typically intercultural theatre positions the performance traditions andoractual bodies of ldquootherrdquo cultures as focal points of the Western viewerrsquos specularconsumption and it is through this kind of untroubled and desiring gaze thatrei ed images of cultural difference are validated and circulated on the ldquointer-nationalrdquo arts market If intercultural theatre means to address the potential in-equities involved in Western appropriations of other cultural traditions then itsadherents must conceive of a theatre that somehow engages with its own estab-lished ldquolookingrdquo relations Interventionary frameworks and other metatheatricaldevicesmdashthese might range from direct audience address to self-conscious roleplaying to forum discussionmdashcan be used to problematize the implicitly im-perialist object-relations model of cross-cultural spectatorship Within the self-re exive theatre that we envision the hybridizing of cultural fragments wouldbe far from seamless cultural tensions would not be hidden nor difference nat-uralized

Conclusion

We have attempted to map the eld of cross-cultural theatre as a way of think-ing through its complexities and contradictions Despite our efforts to integratea diverse range of theories and practices into a ldquobig-picturerdquo account of the eldwe are not advocating a totalizing theory of cultural exchange Rather our dis-cussion is designed to enable a strategic way of rethinking the local and context-speci c through the global and vice versa This sort of matrixed model we wouldargue proffers a more nuanced method of actualizing and analyzing the range ofwork that is increasingly becoming a globalized praxis

Our all too brief survey of potential sites of intervention in the practice andinterpretation of intercultural theatre outlines some of the ways in which the

Cross-Cultural Theatre Praxis 49

mise-en-scene can be politicized and the notion of cultural hegemony relativizedIn an age where cultural boundaries are continually traversed and identities arebecoming increasingly hybridized an intercultural theatre practice informed bypostcolonial theory can potentially function as a site where this intersecting ofcultures is both re ected and critiqued Such a practice would align with (thoughnot necessarily replicate) Gomez-Penarsquos formulation of ldquoborder artrdquo in whichthe performerrsquos job is ldquoto trespass bridge interconnect reinterpret remap andrede nerdquo the limits of culture (199612) It is vital that intercultural theatrersquospotential to cross cultures is not co-opted and neutralized by the ldquoweakerrdquo formsof postmodernism which tend to result in an abstract depoliticized and ahis-torical notion of ldquodifferencerdquo or in effect a masked ldquoindifferencerdquo In this re-spect Homi Bhabharsquos clari cation of postcolonial hybridity as based on anagonistic relationship rather than a seamless fusion offers a workable model foran ethics as well as an aesthetics of cross-cultural engagement

Hybrid hyphenations emphasise the incommensurable elements [] as thebasis of cultural identi cations What is at issue is the performative natureof differential identities the regulation and negotiation of those spaces thatare continually contingently ldquoopening outrdquo remaking the boundariesexposing the limits of any claim to a singular or autonomous sign of dif-ferencemdashbe it class gender or race Such assignations of social differ-encesmdashwhere difference is neither One nor the Other but something elsebesides in-betweenmdash nd their agency in [] an interstitial future thatemerges in between the claims of the past and the needs of the present(1994219)

The kind of hyphenated hybridity that Bhabha outlines is already within theconceptual reach of interculturalism It is now time for a more sustained andsystematic engagement with the politics of its production

Notes

1 ldquoAgencyrdquo refers here to the potential to act or perform an action autonomously it registersdegrees of power and knowledge combined since to act autonomously is to understand theideological systems in which one is imbricated

2 For an extended discussion of multiculturalism in Canada Australia and the United Statessee Gunew (199351ndash65)

3 See Bennett (1996144ndash47) for examples of small ldquomrdquo multicultural theatre in which blind-cast productions of Shakespearersquos The Tempest unwittingly reproduced dominant culturalvalues

4 Guillermo Gomez-Pena critiques a similar model of intercultural encounter in his conceptof ldquocorporaterdquo or ldquotransnationalrdquo multiculturalism which he argues characterizes manybusiness and media conglomeratesrsquo current interest in difference Such difference performsthe ldquopassive roles of glossy images and exotic backgroundrdquo and real diversity is ldquo attenedand equalized by high production valuesrdquo (200112)

5 Examples of big ldquoMrdquo multicultural theatre include various projects done by El Teatro Cam-pesino (US) Talawa (Britain) Doppio Teatro and Urban Theatre Projects (Australia) andCahoots Theatre Projects (Canada) Of course there have been numerous projects (espe-cially in non-Western countries) that t within our de nition of multicultural theatre al-though the speci c practitioners involved may not identify their work in this way Examplesinclude projects by Five Arts Centre (Malaysia) William Kentridge and the HandspringPuppet Company (South Africa) Rustom Bharucha (India) and Gomez-Pena (USAMexico)

6 Our identi cation of ghetto and migrant theatres is in uenced by Richard Fotheringhamrsquoswork ([1987] 1992197ndash98)

7 For further explication of community theatre see Baz Kershaw (1992)

50 LoGilbert

8 For some time postcolonial theatre has been well theorized as a conceptual category albeita contested one however in-depth engagement with postcolonialism has been conspicu-ously absent from discussions of cross-cultural performance work in journals such as TDRSimilarly Patrice Pavisrsquos introduction to The Intercultural Performance Reader (1996) virtuallydismisses the eld of postcolonial theatre even though some of the bookrsquos contents clearly t within this grouping

9 Wole Soyinka Derek Walcott and Girish Karnad are the most prominent of a very largeand diverse group of dramatists who might be catagorized as ldquopostcolonialrdquo Well-knownindigenous theatre groups in countries permanently colonized by European powers includeKooemba Jdarra (Australia) Taki Rua Productions (New Zealand) Spiderwoman (USA) andNative Earth Performing Arts (Canada) See Gilbert and Tompkins (1996) for an extendedaccount of the eld

10 See the introduction to Christopher Balmersquos book Decolonizing the Stage Theatrical Syncre-tism and Post-Colonial Drama (1999) for an extended history of the conceptual category ofsyncretic theatre Balme has been the key theorist of this form of cross-cultural performancefor several years though he initially assessed its overarching function as cultural rapproche-ment rather than decolonization andor resistance

11 His notable theatre projects include Tooth of Crime (1973) Mother Courage (1975) The Pro-metheus Project (1983ndash85) and Three Sisters (1995ndash97)

12 The Tales from South Asia project as documented by Sharon Grady and Phillip Zarilli (1994)exhibits most of the features of the collaborative model The stated aims of the projectrsquosinitiators were to

develop a strategy of presentation and representation which engages an audienceandor students in ldquodifferencerdquo without stereotyping essentializing romanticizingthe ldquoother and keeping onersquos audience aware of contestation as a social realityrdquo(Grady and Zarilli 1994169)

13 Similar celebratory responses can be found in Williams (1992) and Wilshire and Wilshire(1989)

14 This position has been described elsewhere as ldquohappy hybridityrdquo (see Lo 2000)15 Schechnerrsquos 1989 article ldquoIntercultural Themesrdquo maps his thinking on the subject up to

the end of the 1980s see his 1996 interview with Pavis for a more recent account16 On a similar note Craig Latrell recently argued for a more complex reading of intercultural

exchange beyond the ldquovictim-victimizer narrativerdquo The non-Western cultures should notbe perceived as passive receivers of Western ideas but rather active manipulators of suchin uences (200045ndash46) His analysis of the speci city of theatrical agency is howeverweakened by the lack of attention to historical speci city and particularly the impact ofcolonialism in Singapore and Indonesia

17 For detailed explanation see Pavis (19924ndash20)18 Pavis adheres to the idea of turning the hourglass over for other perspectives but unlike

his earlier theorization which advocated the reversal as a way for the source culture tomonitor its own process of exchange the latest discussion appears to consolidate the primacyof the dominant culture

At the end of the process when spectators feel themselves buried alive under thesand of signs and symbols they have no other salvation than to give up and turn thehourglass upside down Then the perspective inverts and one must reverse andrelativize the sediments accumulated in the receiving culture and judge them fromthe point of view of alterity and relativity (199618)

19 For a fuller account of various modes of hybridity see Lo (2000152ndash55)20 See Gilbert (199813ndash25) for a more detailed discussion of the ways in which postcolonial

theory can be used to interpret ideological aspects of performance

References

Ambush Benny Sato1989 ldquoPluralism to the Bonerdquo American Theatre 615

Cross-Cultural Theatre Praxis 51

Ang Ien and John Stratton1994 ldquoMulticultural Imagined Communities Cultural Difference and National Iden-

tity in Australia and the USArdquo Continuum The Australian Journal of Media andCulture 8 2124ndash58

Ashcroft Bill Gareth Grif ths and Helen Tif n eds1995 The Post-Colonial Studies Reader London Routledge

Balme Christopher1999 Decolonizing the Stage Theatrical Syncretism and Post-Colonial Drama Oxford Ox-

ford University Press

Barba Eugenio1996 ldquoEurasian Theatrerdquo In The Intercultural Performance Reader edited by Patrice Pav-

ice 217ndash22 London Routledge

Bennett Susan1996 Performing Nostalgia Shifting Shakespeare and the ContemporaryPast LondonRout-

ledge

Bhabha Homi1994 The Location of Culture London Routledge

Bharucha Rustom1993 Theatre and the World Performance and the Politics of Culture London Routledge2000 The Politics of Cultural Practice Thinking through Theatre in an Age of Globalisation

London Athlone Press

Brandon James1990 ldquoContemporary Japanese Theatre Interculturalism and Intraculturalismrdquo In The

Dramatic Touch of Difference Theatre Own and Foreign edited by Erika Fischer-Lichte Michael Gissenwehrer and Josephine Riley 89ndash97 Tubingen Narr

Brown John Russell1998 ldquoTheatrical Pillage in Asia Redirecting the Intercultural Traf crdquo New Theatre

Quarterly 14 539ndash19

Carlson Marvin1990 ldquoPeter Brookrsquos The Mahabharata and Ariane Mnouchkinersquos LrsquoIndiade as Ex-

amples of Contemporary Cross-cultural Theatrerdquo In The Dramatic Touch of Dif-ference Theatre Own and Foreign edited by Erika Fischer-Lichte Michael Gissen-wehrer and Josephine Riley 49ndash56 Tubingen Narr

Carter David1986 ldquoThe Natives Are Getting Restless Nationalism Multiculturalism and Migrant

Writingrdquo Island Magazine 25263ndash8

Chin Daryl1991 ldquoInterculturalism Postmodernism Pluralismrdquo In Interculturalism and Performance

Writings from PAJ edited by Bonnie Marranca and Gautam Dasgupta 83ndash95New York PAJ Publications

Clifford James1994 ldquoDiasporasrdquo Cultural Anthropology 9 3 302ndash38

Dasgupta Gautam1991 ldquoThe Mahabharata Peter Brookrsquos Orientalismrdquo In Interculturalism and Perfor-

mance Writings from PAJ edited by Bonnie Marranca and Gautam Dasgupta 75ndash82 New York PAJ Publications

De Reuck Jenny2000 ldquolsquoThe mirror shattered into tiny piecesrsquo Reading Gender and Culture in the

Japan Foundation Asia Centrersquos LEARrdquo Intersections Online Asian Studies Journal3 6 httpwwwsshemurdocheduauintersectionsissue3jenny3html (12January 2001)

Cross-Cultural Theatre Praxis 39

Collaborative

Intercultural exchange at this end of the continuum tends to emphasize theprocesses and politics of exchange rather than the theatrical product per se Thisform of theatre-making places great importance on cultural negotiations at alllevels from the highly personal and individualistic to the ldquosuperstructuralrdquo andinstitutional Collaborative interculturalism is often community-generated ratherthan market andor state-driven There is less of a focus on maintaining theldquopurityrdquo of the various cultures for exotic display The exchange process is oftenmarked by tension and incommensurability While there is a general desire tomaintain equitable power relations between partners the aim is not to producea harmonious experience of theatre-making but rather to explore the fullness ofcultural exchange in all its contradictions and convergences for all parties Thetheatre product may similarly resist forced synthesis revealing instead both thepositive and negative aspects of the encounter12 Ferdinand Ortizrsquos concept oftransculturation (not to be confused with transculturalism) offers a useful way ofanalyzing collaborative interculturalism by going beyond a model of easy fusionto account for both acquisition and loss at the same time In the transculturationprocess elements of each system of culture are lost in the creation of a thirdsystem Cultural encounter of this kind can be potentially counterhegemonic itallows minor cultures to act on dominant ones rather than merely submit tocultural loss in the transaction (see Taylor 199162ndash63)

Imperialistic

Intercultural exchange at this end of the continuum is often driven by a senseof Western culture as bankrupt and in need of invigoration from the non-WestThe resulting theatre tends to tap into ldquoOtherrdquo cultural traditions that are per-ceived as ldquoauthenticrdquo and uncontaminated by (Western) modernity Interculturalpractice in this mode is largely an aesthetic response to cultural diversity Thereis a discernible difference in agency between partners such inequity is oftenhistorically based and may continue in the present through economic politicaland technological dominance This form of theatre tends to be product-orientedand usually produced for the dominant culturersquos consumption Performances areoften highly spectacular with emphasis placed on the aesthetic and formal qualitiesof the mise-en-scene The intercultural work of practitioners such as ArianeMnouchkine has been described as imperialist though Mnouchkine refutes thischarge preferring to see her appropriations of Asian performing traditions as aform of indebtedness and ldquohomagerdquo Maria Shevtsova defends this position byasserting that Mnouchkine does not purport to use the ldquooriginalrdquo art form andthat her ldquoborrowingrdquo practices should be understood within the logic of herWestern system of aestheticism (1997102)

Responses to Interculturalism

Given the range of intercultural modalities it is not surprising that criticaltheoretical responses are similarly varied Generally speaking most commentatorshave analyzed interculturalism as practice their responses ranging from the ce-lebratory to the highly critical Schechnerrsquos earlier writings about interculturalpractice exemplify many aspects of the celebratory stance13 Schechner refers tothe intercultural experimentations in the US from the 1950s to the mid rsquo70s asa ldquogolden age of innocencerdquo

People didnrsquot question too much whether or not this interculturalism []was a continuation of colonialism a further exploitation of other cultures

40 LoGilbert

There was something simply celebratory about discovering how diversethe world was how many performance genres there were and how wecould enrich our own experience by borrowing stealing exchanging(198219)

This neoliberal embrace of cultural difference celebrates the possibilities of cul-tural fusion and the construction of radical subjectivities beyond national andethnic boundaries Intercultural practice in this sense is deeply imbricated inglobalization and the perceived deterritorialization of social cultural and politicalboundaries for those in the developed world even if this is not often acknowl-edged by the critics and practitioners themselves14 It should be noted thatSchechnerrsquos position has shifted signi cantly since then15 over the last decade inparticular his critical work shows less of a tendency to idealize cross-culturalexchange and a keener awareness of power relations He also acknowledges the

misunderstandings broken languages and failed transactions that occurwhen and where cultures collide overlap or pull away from each otherThese are seen not as obstacles to be overcome but as fertile rifts or erup-tions full of creative potential (19913)

At the other end of the scale is the ethical critique of intercultural practice asinvasive globalization Daryl Chin argues that

Interculturalism hinges on the questions of autonomy and empowermentTo deploy elements from the symbol system of another culture is a verydelicate enterprise In its crudest terms the question is when does thatusage act as cultural imperialism Forcing elements from disparate culturestogether does not seem to be a solution that makes much sense aestheti-cally ethically or philosophically What does that prove that the knowl-edge of other cultures exists That information about other cultures nowis readily available (199194)

For Bharucha likewise interculturalism cannot be separated from a larger his-tory of colonialism and orientalism (see also Dasgupta 1991) He contends thatinterculturalism is an inherently ethnocentric practice which seeks to synthesizecultural difference rather than respect its individual histories

The problem arises [] when the preoccupation with the ldquoself rdquo over-powers the representation of ldquootherrdquo cultures [and] when the Other isnot another but the projection of onersquos ego Then all one has is a glori -cation of the self and a co-option of other cultures in the name of repre-sentation (199328)

John Russell Brown adds

Exchange borrowing trade or looting across major frontiers diminishesany theatre because it transgresses its inherited reliance on the societyfrom which the drama takes its life and for which it was intended to beperformed [] However worthily it is intended intercultural theatricalexchange is in fact a form of pillage and the result is fancy-dress pre-tence or at best the creation of a small zoo in which no creature has itsfull life (199814)

Cross-Cultural Theatre Praxis 41

Such moral critiques while absolutely essential to the politicizing of intercul-turalism risk instigating a kind of paralysis insofar as they suggest that virtuallyno form of theatrical exchange can be ethical16 This position is clearly untenablefor a number of practitioners especially those whose art is derived from (andaims to explore) experiences of cultural hybridity For instance performanceartisttheorist Guillermo Gomez-Pena a self-confessed ldquochild of crisis and cul-tural syncretismrdquo (199338) sees his own work (and the desirable future of Amer-ican theatre) as inevitably pluralistic unavoidably intercultural But he is alsoacutely aware of the implications of intercultural work noting that it is ldquofunda-mental to address relationships of power and assumptions about privilege amongthe participating artists communities and countriesrdquo in order to develop ethicalmodels of theatrical exchange (19969) To facilitate this Gomez-Pena calls for amuch more rigorous public debate about cultural issues in general about equityand diversity about de nitions of ldquomulti- inter- intra- and cross-culturalrdquoabout which encounters between cultures are ldquosymmetrical and desirable andwhich are more reactionaryrdquo (199357) In projects such as Temple of Confessions(1994) A Seminar on Museum Race Relations (1995) and Mexterminator Project(1999)mdashdeliberately provocative works that are at times even ldquounethicalrdquomdashGomez-Pena relentlessly stages aspects of this debate always avoiding de nitiveanswers

Theoretical Models of Interculturalism

While many critics have posed theoretical challenges to the intercultural en-terprise there have been surprisingly few attempts to formulate a comprehensivemodel of intercultural exchange Marvin Carlson has offered a scale consisting ofseven categories of cross-cultural in uence based on ldquopossible relationships be-tween the culturally familiar and the culturally foreignrdquo (199050) While usefulfor differentiating types of projects this scale does not move beyond an essentiallytaxonomic analysis of the eld Fischer-Lichte takes a different tack focusingspeci cally on the adaptation process which she insists follows a model of ldquopro-ductive receptionrdquo rather than one of translation (1997154ndash55) Productive re-ception emphasizes aspects of a performance caused or in uenced by receptionand is aligned in Fischer-Lichtersquos work with the project of revitalizing tired the-atrical practices though she does not elaborate on the precise dynamics involved

Pavis has thus far been the only critic able to sustain a comprehensive modelof intercultural exchange His hourglass model depicts in its upper bowl theforeign or source culture ldquowhich is more or less codi ed and solidi ed in diverseanthropological sociocultural or artistic modelizationsrdquo (19924) This is repre-sented by lters 1 and 2 in the diagram below The ldquograins of culturerdquo trickledown to the lower bowl and are rearranged in the process The lters 3 through11 put in place by the target culture and the observer largely determine the nalformation of the grains17 The model focuses on ldquothe intercultural transfer be-tween source and target culturerdquo as a way of depicting the relativity of the notionof culture and the complicated relationship between partners in the exchange(19925)

Critique of the Hourglass Model

In practice Pavisrsquos hourglass is an accurate model of most intercultural workof the extracultural kind But the modelrsquos strength is also its weakness it cannotaccount for alternative and more collaborative forms of intercultural exchangeDespite Pavisrsquos wariness of a translationcommunication model of intercultural-ism his elaboration of the process of cultural transfer reveals its dependence on

42 LoGilbert

translation theory The main problem with this model is that it assumes a one-way cultural ow based on a hierarchy of privilege even though Pavis attemptsto relativize the power relations by claiming that the hourglass can be turnedupside-down ldquoas soon as the users of a foreign culture ask themselves how theycan communicate their own culture to another target culturerdquo (19925) Thishowever assumes that there is a ldquolevel-playing eldrdquo between the partners in theexchange and does not account for the fact that the bene ts of globalization andthe permeability of cultures and political systems are accessed differentially fordifferent communities and nations

A translation model of interculturalism therefore runs the risk of reproducingstrategies of containment As Tejaswine Niranjana points out

By employing certain modes of representing the othermdashwhich it therebyalso brings into beingmdashtranslation reinforces hegemonic versions of thecolonized helping them acquire the status of what Edward Said calls rep-resentations or objects without history (19923)

Diagram 3 Pavisrsquos hour-glass Model of InterculturalTheatre

Cross-Cultural Theatre Praxis 43

Pavis is not unaware of this danger

If [the hourglass] is only a mill it will blend the source culture destroy itsevery speci city and drop into the lower bowl an inert and deformed sub-stance which will have lost its original modeling without being moldedinto that of the target culture If it is only a funnel it will indiscriminatelyabsorb the initial substance without reshaping it through the series of l-ters or leaving any trace of the original matter (19925)

Having said this however Pavis is unable to account for interculturalism as aprocess of political negotiation For example he argues that the mise-en-sceneas the central site of interculturalism functions as a ldquokind of reglage (lsquo ne-tuningrsquo)rdquo which mediates between different contexts cultural backgrounds andtraditions (19926) ldquoFine-tuningrdquo serves to smooth over differences in ways thatbecome intelligible for the target culture Similarly ldquoreception-adaptersrdquo ( lter8) ll the lacunae in the transfer of cultural content and dissipate the tensions ofincommensurability in order to create a ldquoreadablerdquo text for the target culture

The teleology of the hourglass model ultimately reduces interculturalexchangeto an alimentary process According to this logic the body belongs to the targetculture while the source culture becomes the food which must be digested andassimilated As Pavis notes only the grains that are ldquosuf ciently nerdquo will ldquo owthrough [the hourglass neck] without any troublerdquo (19924) His model cannotaccount for blockage collisions and retroaction as sites of either intervention orresistance In the nal analysis intercultural exchange according to the hourglassmodel is a reductive process which distills cultural difference into essences thatcan be readily absorbed by the target culture While Pavis does acknowledge thein uence of the social context ( lters 10B and 10C) the temporally bound meta-phor of the hourglass suggests that sociohistorical factors rather than in ectingthe entire intercultural process simply constitute the nal lter before the the-atrical product is consumed by the target culture In short the hourglass modelis premised on aesthetics rather than on politics

Pavis does not stray far from this model in his more recent theorization of the eld (1996) proffering instead a more careful schematization of different formsand modes of intercultural practice Although he does acknowledge the proble-matics of power inequities between partners in the exchange noting that ldquotherecan be no sense in which Asian perspectives are always reversible and symmetricalwith those of the Westmdashas a purely functionalist use of the hourglass turnedover and over ad in nitum might lead us naively to believerdquo (19962) there islittle sense that he has revised the translation principles underlying his model18

Pavis takes account of some of the recent ethical critiques of interculturalismandis particularly wary of it being absorbed into a postmodernist form of culturalrelativism Although he claims that ldquoexchange implies a theory and an ethics ofalterityrdquo (199611) he does not foreground the ethical dimension in any discern-ible way Signi cantly Pavis claims that the kind of intercultural practice thatholds the most potential for ldquoresistance against standardization against the Eu-ropeanization of super-productionsrdquo is the ldquointer-corporeal work in which anactor confronts hisher technique and professional identity with those of theothersrdquo (1996150) By locating the potential for agency at this microscopic levelof actor training Pavis reveals the limitations of the hourglass model as an effectivetemplate for a politicized theorization of the entire eld of interculturalism

Matrixing Interculturalism and Postcolonialism

One way of approaching the problems raised by Pavisrsquos model of interculturaltheatre is to consider its mechanisms through the lens of postcolonial theory

44 LoGilbert

Despite their shared concern with the phenomenon of cultural encounter the-ories of interculturalism and postcolonialism have thus far developed as more orless asymmetrical discourses the former having roots in theatre anthropology(viaVictor Turner) and semiotics the latter in literary and cultural studies as well asin psychoanalysis (via Frantz Fanon) and poststructuralism Of the two discoursespostcolonial theory has been the most consistently political taking as its primaryimperative the task of exposing and redressing unequal power relationships be-tween cultures whereas interculturalism has concerned itself more often with theaesthetics of cultural transfer What postcolonial theory offers to current debatesabout interculturalism is a framework for analyzing such thorny issues as agencyhybridity and authenticity issues that lie at the heart of intercultural praxis Withits insistent stress on historicity and speci city postcolonial theory offers ways ofrelocating the dynamics of intercultural theatre within identi able elds of so-ciopolitical and historical relations This contextualizing enables us to ask at anypoint in the production and reception processes of intercultural work questionsabout individual and collective power Whose economic andor political interestsare being served How is the working process represented to the target audienceand why Who is the target audience and how can differences be addressed withinthis constituency How does a speci c intercultural event impact on the widersociopolitical environment

The term ldquointerculturalrdquo suggests an exploration of the interstice betweencultures it draws our attention to the hyphenated third space separating andconnecting different peoples The act of crossing cultures (with reference to Dol-limorersquos notions of travesty hybridity and con ict) should ideally activate bothcentrifugal and centripetal forces in the process of mutual contamination andinteraction This is an aspect which Pavisrsquos unilinear model of interculturalismcannot take into account We would therefore like to propose an alternativemodel of intercultural exchange which for the purposes of this essay focuses onthe ldquobig picturerdquo and uses some of Pavisrsquos categories and terminologies Ourmodel is both a template for an intercultural practice that encourages more mu-tuality and an attempted representation of the mutuality that has already existedat some level even if it has been limited and nonre exive indeed suppressed inmuch theorizing of particular projects Our aim is to adapt what is essentially anappropriativeassimilationist model into a more collaborativenegotiated oneThe model we have in mind draws inspiration from a toy we used to play withas children in both Malaysia and Australia The toy consisted of a piece of elasticstrung through the middle of a plastic disc The elastic string is held at each endwith the disc supported in the center By rotating the hands in a circular motionthe disc is rotated outward Once the disc is rotating the elastic is alternatelytightened and released to continue the spinning of the disc The disc moves ineither direction along the string depending on whether the tension is generatedby the left or the right hand

In our model intercultural exchange is represented as a two-way ow Bothpartners are considered cultural sources while the target culture is positionedalong the continuum between them The location of the target culture is not xed its position remains uid and depending on where and how the exchangeprocess takes place shifts along the continuum For instance if the performancetakes place in the domain of source culture B then the position of the targetculture moves closer to source Brsquos end of the continuum This uidity not onlyforegrounds the dialogic nature of intercultural exchange but also takes into ac-count the possibility of power disparity in the partnership

Both source cultures bring to the theatrical project cultural apparatuses shapedby their respective sociocultural milieu ( lters 1 and 2) and both undergo a seriesof transformations and challenges in the process of exchange ( lters 3 through 9)

Cross-Cultural Theatre Praxis 45

SourceCulture B

1 cultural modeling2 artistic modeling3 work of adaptation4 preparatory work by

actors5 choice of theatrical

form6 artistic modeling of

target culture7 sociological amp

anthropologicalmodeling of targetculture

8 cultural modeling oftarget culture

9 given and anticipatedconsequences

SourceCulture A

cultural modeling

artistic modeling

work of adaptation

preparatory work byactors

choice of theatricalform

artistic modeling oftarget culture

sociological ampanthropologicalmodeling of targetculture

cultural modeling oftarget culture

given and anticipatedconsequences

SociopoliticalContext

InterculturalProcess for

TargetCulture

SociopoliticalContext

1234

5

6

7

8

9

in relation to each other and in anticipation of the target culture Even if thetarget culture is aligned with one of the source cultures both partners still undergoa similar process of ltration and hybridization however differently experiencedPositioned at the tension between source cultures intercultural exchange is char-acterized both by gain and by loss attraction and disavowal This dialogism isrepresented by the centrifugal and centripetal forces indicated in the diagramabove The proposed model locates all intercultural activity within an identi ablesociopolitical context This serves not only to foreground the inseparability ofartistic endeavors from sociopolitical relations but also to remind us that theoryand reading strategies are themselves deeply imbricated in speci c histories andpolitics

Our model of intercultural theatre rests on a notion of differentiated hybriditythat works in multiple and sometimes opposing ways19 Postcolonial theory haslong recognized that particular modes of hybridity are pinned to social politicaland economic factors which are conditioned in turn by historical experiencesof cultural encounters Extensive debate about the political purchase of hybridityhas prompted scholars such as Robert Young (1995) to distinguish between twokinds of hybridity organic and intentional Organic hybridity which has beenaligned with creolization and metissage is close to the fusion model oftenmanifestin intercultural theory It results in new cultural practices and identities withoutconscious contestation and serves a stabilizing function in settling cultural dif-ferences In this kind of hybridity agency inheres in cosmopolitanism the abilityto cross between cultures and to master their hybrid forms In contrast intentionalhybridity focuses on the process of negotiation between different practices andpoints of view It is characterized by division and separation and tends to be self-re exive with the negotiation process inevitably pinpointing areas of con ict In

Diagram 4 ProposedModel for Interculturalism

46 LoGilbert

this instance agency hinges on the degree to which cultural forms resist dilutionandor co-option According to Young the two categories of hybridity the in-tentional and the organic can be in operation at the same time resulting in anantithetical movement of coalescence and antagonism This offers a

dialectical model for cultural interaction an organic hybridity which willtend towards fusion in con ict with intentional hybridity which enables acontestatory activity a politicized setting of cultural differences againsteach other dialogically (199522)

Debates about hybridity in postcolonial theory tend to go hand in hand withdiscussions of authenticity Grif ths reminds us that ldquoauthenticityrdquo is a politicallycharged concept rather than a ldquonaturalrdquo or preexisting attribute While it may bepolitically exigent for non-Western peoples to deploy discourses of authenticityin order to bolster their cultural authority in the hands of Western critics andcommentators the sign of the ldquoauthenticrdquo can easily become a fetishized com-modity that grounds the legitimacy of other cultures ldquonot in their practice butin our desirerdquo (Grif ths 199482) That much intercultural theatre has been drivenby an intense interest in harnessing ldquotraditionalrdquo performance forms suggests weshould treat authenticity with caution recognizing that it registers and respondsto hierarchies of power In this context the ability to manipulate markers ofauthenticity becomes another measure of agency

Sites of Intervention

If postcolonialism is to denaturalize the universalist vision of the more egre-gious kinds of interculturalism it must bring into focus such aspects of theatre aslanguage space the body costume and spectatorship as ideologically laden signsystems as well as potential sites of hybridity By brie y outlining politicized waysof reading such sign systems20 we hope in the nal section of this essay to suggestpathways into intercultural projects that resist an unproblematized transfer of cul-ture

On the whole intercultural theatre has tended to favor visual spectacle overlinguistic innovation nevertheless there are signi cant language-based issues thatpertain to both its processes and products An elementary but immensely im-portant question is the matter of whose language is used for everyday commu-nication during the devising and rehearsing of speci c productions The fact thatEnglish has become the lingua franca in an increasingly globalized arts communitygives its native speakers considerable power to substantiate their views andorsecure their particular agendas In this respect we should remember that thewide-scale imposition of imperial languages on non-Western peoples has consti-tuted an insidious form of epistemic violence since the system of values inherentin a language becomes the ldquosystem upon which social economic and politicaldiscourses are groundedrdquo (Ashcroft Grif ths and Tif n 1995283) To ask whosevalues are heard and whose are silenced by the use of speci c languages thereforeseems essential to a more politicized form of interculturalism In addition wemight ask how linguistic translationsare conducted and whose interests they serveDoes the translator function as a negotiator or a type of ldquonative informantrdquo Whathappens to linguistic concepts that resist translation or adaptation In terms oftheatrical product language issues are equally complicated How do staged lan-guages animate one another Which carries the cultural authority What happensto the performative features of verbal enunciation particularly when stories frompredominantly oral cultures are presented How might we reread verbally silencedbodies in different ways

Cross-Cultural Theatre Praxis 47

Since intercultural theatre stages a meeting of cultures in both physical andimaginative realmsmdashthe actual place(s) where a project takes place as well as the ctional spaces represented by the mise-en-scenemdashits spatial semantics also de-mand analysis Space is neither neutral nor homogenous it inevitably colors thoserelationships within its limits especially on the stage where con gurations ofspace take on symbolic meaning We need to ask then how the physical spacemeeting place in ects intercultural collaborationWhose ground are we on Whatare the power relations inscribed in the architectural aspects of that place Howcan theatre provide a space for negotiatingor subverting the relationships its spatialcon gurations foster We also need to examine the ideological assumptions thatinhere in the imaginative space(s) created by the scenography What does the setfor instance convey about the cultures involved in the collaboration Whichactors and characters have access topriority over what spaces Where are theborders between cultures and how are they maintained traversed or brokendown What kind of cultural landscape is suggested by the stagescape

Postcolonial theorizing of geography cartography and spatial history showshow space is constructed in the nexus of power and culture rather than simplyexisting as an ontological category This kind of politicized approach brings intofocus the disjunctive gap between visible space and its ctional referent (what weinfer or imagine from our culturally in ected reading of proxemics) It is thenpossible to explore the rhizomatic potential of interculturalismmdashits ability to makemultiple connections and disconnections between cultural spacesmdashand to createrepresentations that are unbounded and open and potentially resistant to im-perialist forms of closure

The body in intercultural theatre is equally subject to multiple inscriptionsproducing an unstable signi er rather than a totalized identity It is a site of con-vergence for contesting discourses even though it may be marked with the dis-tinctive signs of a particular culture Postcolonial theory aims to foreground theways in which power is inscribed on and negotiated through the body Suchtheory continually questions what is spoken through the body how its languagesoperate and in the service of whose vested interests It maintains that the bodyis not only a site of knowledgepower but also a site of resistance which inElizabeth Groszrsquos words ldquoexerts a recalcitrance and always entails the possibilityof counterstrategic re-inscription [because] it is capable of being self-marked self-represented in alternative waysrdquo (199064) We need then to look at how resis-tance is expressed in relation to performative bodies how those bodies encodedifference and speci city and how they can prevent the universalizing impulseof transculturalism

As categories that are constructed through visible differences race and genderhave particular signi cance in this respect it is important to note however thatthese are complex and even unstable categories being historically conditionedrather than determined solely by biology One of the problems intercultural the-atre often faces is how to avoid essentialist constructions of race and gender whilestill accounting for the irreducible speci city of certain bodies and body behav-iors A common response is to elevate particular roles in source texts to the level ofarchetypes that can then be played by any skilled performer Peter Brookrsquos Ma-habharata has been accused of this approach (Dasgupta 1991 Bharucha 199368ndash87) This process of distillation strips the readable signs of culture from the sourcetext rather than provoke the audience to examine the tensions between partici-pating cultures There is no dialogic interaction instead a speci c body is sub-merged in the archetypal role according to the aesthetic principles of the projectPostcolonial theory warns against the dehistoricizing effects of such distillationprocesses It focuses on analyzing the gap between the material body and what itis supposed to represent This involves examining movement as well as bodily ap-

48 LoGilbert

pearance since as Pavis notes ldquoactors simultaneously reveal the culture of thecommunity where they have trained and where they live and the bodily tech-nique they have acquiredrdquo (19963) Rather than working from principles of ab-straction an intercultural practice informed by postcolonialism would play upcultural differences without attempting to deny the effects of the political econ-omy that underpins the project The hybrid counter-energies that result from theclash between the symbolic space and the culturally inscribed body can then pro-duce ldquoa radical heterogeneity discontinuity [and] the perpetual revolutionof formrdquo(Young 199525)

A politicized reading of costume is similarly necessary to the formulation of amore comprehensive theory about intercultural performance It seems that partof the attraction of interculturalism has to do with the fantasy of stepping intoldquonativerdquo costume in a process of cultural transvestism that does anything butsubvert power hierarchies As Gail Ching-Liang Low argues the fantasy of cross-cultural dressing identi es clothes as a ldquolsquobadge and advertisementrsquo of [the domi-nant culturersquos] ability to cross the class and cultural gaprdquo hence cultural transvestismoffers ldquothe promise of lsquotransgressiversquo pleasure without the penalties of actualchangerdquo (198992ndash93) If such transvestism could be used to draw attention tothe dif culties that inhere in crossing cultural gaps costume would then becomeanother possible site of resistant inscription rather than a conduit for the one-waycultural transfer that currently characterizes certain forms of interculturalismThisis where postcolonial theories about mimicry masquerade and self-consciousconstructions of subjectivity can come into play because they treat costume as amalleable and even ambiguous signi er rather than a transparent sign of particulargender racial social and national identities

Degrees of power and privilege are also embedded in the framing mechanismsthrough which particular elements of a performance are presented to its audi-ence(s) Typically intercultural theatre positions the performance traditions andoractual bodies of ldquootherrdquo cultures as focal points of the Western viewerrsquos specularconsumption and it is through this kind of untroubled and desiring gaze thatrei ed images of cultural difference are validated and circulated on the ldquointer-nationalrdquo arts market If intercultural theatre means to address the potential in-equities involved in Western appropriations of other cultural traditions then itsadherents must conceive of a theatre that somehow engages with its own estab-lished ldquolookingrdquo relations Interventionary frameworks and other metatheatricaldevicesmdashthese might range from direct audience address to self-conscious roleplaying to forum discussionmdashcan be used to problematize the implicitly im-perialist object-relations model of cross-cultural spectatorship Within the self-re exive theatre that we envision the hybridizing of cultural fragments wouldbe far from seamless cultural tensions would not be hidden nor difference nat-uralized

Conclusion

We have attempted to map the eld of cross-cultural theatre as a way of think-ing through its complexities and contradictions Despite our efforts to integratea diverse range of theories and practices into a ldquobig-picturerdquo account of the eldwe are not advocating a totalizing theory of cultural exchange Rather our dis-cussion is designed to enable a strategic way of rethinking the local and context-speci c through the global and vice versa This sort of matrixed model we wouldargue proffers a more nuanced method of actualizing and analyzing the range ofwork that is increasingly becoming a globalized praxis

Our all too brief survey of potential sites of intervention in the practice andinterpretation of intercultural theatre outlines some of the ways in which the

Cross-Cultural Theatre Praxis 49

mise-en-scene can be politicized and the notion of cultural hegemony relativizedIn an age where cultural boundaries are continually traversed and identities arebecoming increasingly hybridized an intercultural theatre practice informed bypostcolonial theory can potentially function as a site where this intersecting ofcultures is both re ected and critiqued Such a practice would align with (thoughnot necessarily replicate) Gomez-Penarsquos formulation of ldquoborder artrdquo in whichthe performerrsquos job is ldquoto trespass bridge interconnect reinterpret remap andrede nerdquo the limits of culture (199612) It is vital that intercultural theatrersquospotential to cross cultures is not co-opted and neutralized by the ldquoweakerrdquo formsof postmodernism which tend to result in an abstract depoliticized and ahis-torical notion of ldquodifferencerdquo or in effect a masked ldquoindifferencerdquo In this re-spect Homi Bhabharsquos clari cation of postcolonial hybridity as based on anagonistic relationship rather than a seamless fusion offers a workable model foran ethics as well as an aesthetics of cross-cultural engagement

Hybrid hyphenations emphasise the incommensurable elements [] as thebasis of cultural identi cations What is at issue is the performative natureof differential identities the regulation and negotiation of those spaces thatare continually contingently ldquoopening outrdquo remaking the boundariesexposing the limits of any claim to a singular or autonomous sign of dif-ferencemdashbe it class gender or race Such assignations of social differ-encesmdashwhere difference is neither One nor the Other but something elsebesides in-betweenmdash nd their agency in [] an interstitial future thatemerges in between the claims of the past and the needs of the present(1994219)

The kind of hyphenated hybridity that Bhabha outlines is already within theconceptual reach of interculturalism It is now time for a more sustained andsystematic engagement with the politics of its production

Notes

1 ldquoAgencyrdquo refers here to the potential to act or perform an action autonomously it registersdegrees of power and knowledge combined since to act autonomously is to understand theideological systems in which one is imbricated

2 For an extended discussion of multiculturalism in Canada Australia and the United Statessee Gunew (199351ndash65)

3 See Bennett (1996144ndash47) for examples of small ldquomrdquo multicultural theatre in which blind-cast productions of Shakespearersquos The Tempest unwittingly reproduced dominant culturalvalues

4 Guillermo Gomez-Pena critiques a similar model of intercultural encounter in his conceptof ldquocorporaterdquo or ldquotransnationalrdquo multiculturalism which he argues characterizes manybusiness and media conglomeratesrsquo current interest in difference Such difference performsthe ldquopassive roles of glossy images and exotic backgroundrdquo and real diversity is ldquo attenedand equalized by high production valuesrdquo (200112)

5 Examples of big ldquoMrdquo multicultural theatre include various projects done by El Teatro Cam-pesino (US) Talawa (Britain) Doppio Teatro and Urban Theatre Projects (Australia) andCahoots Theatre Projects (Canada) Of course there have been numerous projects (espe-cially in non-Western countries) that t within our de nition of multicultural theatre al-though the speci c practitioners involved may not identify their work in this way Examplesinclude projects by Five Arts Centre (Malaysia) William Kentridge and the HandspringPuppet Company (South Africa) Rustom Bharucha (India) and Gomez-Pena (USAMexico)

6 Our identi cation of ghetto and migrant theatres is in uenced by Richard Fotheringhamrsquoswork ([1987] 1992197ndash98)

7 For further explication of community theatre see Baz Kershaw (1992)

50 LoGilbert

8 For some time postcolonial theatre has been well theorized as a conceptual category albeita contested one however in-depth engagement with postcolonialism has been conspicu-ously absent from discussions of cross-cultural performance work in journals such as TDRSimilarly Patrice Pavisrsquos introduction to The Intercultural Performance Reader (1996) virtuallydismisses the eld of postcolonial theatre even though some of the bookrsquos contents clearly t within this grouping

9 Wole Soyinka Derek Walcott and Girish Karnad are the most prominent of a very largeand diverse group of dramatists who might be catagorized as ldquopostcolonialrdquo Well-knownindigenous theatre groups in countries permanently colonized by European powers includeKooemba Jdarra (Australia) Taki Rua Productions (New Zealand) Spiderwoman (USA) andNative Earth Performing Arts (Canada) See Gilbert and Tompkins (1996) for an extendedaccount of the eld

10 See the introduction to Christopher Balmersquos book Decolonizing the Stage Theatrical Syncre-tism and Post-Colonial Drama (1999) for an extended history of the conceptual category ofsyncretic theatre Balme has been the key theorist of this form of cross-cultural performancefor several years though he initially assessed its overarching function as cultural rapproche-ment rather than decolonization andor resistance

11 His notable theatre projects include Tooth of Crime (1973) Mother Courage (1975) The Pro-metheus Project (1983ndash85) and Three Sisters (1995ndash97)

12 The Tales from South Asia project as documented by Sharon Grady and Phillip Zarilli (1994)exhibits most of the features of the collaborative model The stated aims of the projectrsquosinitiators were to

develop a strategy of presentation and representation which engages an audienceandor students in ldquodifferencerdquo without stereotyping essentializing romanticizingthe ldquoother and keeping onersquos audience aware of contestation as a social realityrdquo(Grady and Zarilli 1994169)

13 Similar celebratory responses can be found in Williams (1992) and Wilshire and Wilshire(1989)

14 This position has been described elsewhere as ldquohappy hybridityrdquo (see Lo 2000)15 Schechnerrsquos 1989 article ldquoIntercultural Themesrdquo maps his thinking on the subject up to

the end of the 1980s see his 1996 interview with Pavis for a more recent account16 On a similar note Craig Latrell recently argued for a more complex reading of intercultural

exchange beyond the ldquovictim-victimizer narrativerdquo The non-Western cultures should notbe perceived as passive receivers of Western ideas but rather active manipulators of suchin uences (200045ndash46) His analysis of the speci city of theatrical agency is howeverweakened by the lack of attention to historical speci city and particularly the impact ofcolonialism in Singapore and Indonesia

17 For detailed explanation see Pavis (19924ndash20)18 Pavis adheres to the idea of turning the hourglass over for other perspectives but unlike

his earlier theorization which advocated the reversal as a way for the source culture tomonitor its own process of exchange the latest discussion appears to consolidate the primacyof the dominant culture

At the end of the process when spectators feel themselves buried alive under thesand of signs and symbols they have no other salvation than to give up and turn thehourglass upside down Then the perspective inverts and one must reverse andrelativize the sediments accumulated in the receiving culture and judge them fromthe point of view of alterity and relativity (199618)

19 For a fuller account of various modes of hybridity see Lo (2000152ndash55)20 See Gilbert (199813ndash25) for a more detailed discussion of the ways in which postcolonial

theory can be used to interpret ideological aspects of performance

References

Ambush Benny Sato1989 ldquoPluralism to the Bonerdquo American Theatre 615

Cross-Cultural Theatre Praxis 51

Ang Ien and John Stratton1994 ldquoMulticultural Imagined Communities Cultural Difference and National Iden-

tity in Australia and the USArdquo Continuum The Australian Journal of Media andCulture 8 2124ndash58

Ashcroft Bill Gareth Grif ths and Helen Tif n eds1995 The Post-Colonial Studies Reader London Routledge

Balme Christopher1999 Decolonizing the Stage Theatrical Syncretism and Post-Colonial Drama Oxford Ox-

ford University Press

Barba Eugenio1996 ldquoEurasian Theatrerdquo In The Intercultural Performance Reader edited by Patrice Pav-

ice 217ndash22 London Routledge

Bennett Susan1996 Performing Nostalgia Shifting Shakespeare and the ContemporaryPast LondonRout-

ledge

Bhabha Homi1994 The Location of Culture London Routledge

Bharucha Rustom1993 Theatre and the World Performance and the Politics of Culture London Routledge2000 The Politics of Cultural Practice Thinking through Theatre in an Age of Globalisation

London Athlone Press

Brandon James1990 ldquoContemporary Japanese Theatre Interculturalism and Intraculturalismrdquo In The

Dramatic Touch of Difference Theatre Own and Foreign edited by Erika Fischer-Lichte Michael Gissenwehrer and Josephine Riley 89ndash97 Tubingen Narr

Brown John Russell1998 ldquoTheatrical Pillage in Asia Redirecting the Intercultural Traf crdquo New Theatre

Quarterly 14 539ndash19

Carlson Marvin1990 ldquoPeter Brookrsquos The Mahabharata and Ariane Mnouchkinersquos LrsquoIndiade as Ex-

amples of Contemporary Cross-cultural Theatrerdquo In The Dramatic Touch of Dif-ference Theatre Own and Foreign edited by Erika Fischer-Lichte Michael Gissen-wehrer and Josephine Riley 49ndash56 Tubingen Narr

Carter David1986 ldquoThe Natives Are Getting Restless Nationalism Multiculturalism and Migrant

Writingrdquo Island Magazine 25263ndash8

Chin Daryl1991 ldquoInterculturalism Postmodernism Pluralismrdquo In Interculturalism and Performance

Writings from PAJ edited by Bonnie Marranca and Gautam Dasgupta 83ndash95New York PAJ Publications

Clifford James1994 ldquoDiasporasrdquo Cultural Anthropology 9 3 302ndash38

Dasgupta Gautam1991 ldquoThe Mahabharata Peter Brookrsquos Orientalismrdquo In Interculturalism and Perfor-

mance Writings from PAJ edited by Bonnie Marranca and Gautam Dasgupta 75ndash82 New York PAJ Publications

De Reuck Jenny2000 ldquolsquoThe mirror shattered into tiny piecesrsquo Reading Gender and Culture in the

Japan Foundation Asia Centrersquos LEARrdquo Intersections Online Asian Studies Journal3 6 httpwwwsshemurdocheduauintersectionsissue3jenny3html (12January 2001)

40 LoGilbert

There was something simply celebratory about discovering how diversethe world was how many performance genres there were and how wecould enrich our own experience by borrowing stealing exchanging(198219)

This neoliberal embrace of cultural difference celebrates the possibilities of cul-tural fusion and the construction of radical subjectivities beyond national andethnic boundaries Intercultural practice in this sense is deeply imbricated inglobalization and the perceived deterritorialization of social cultural and politicalboundaries for those in the developed world even if this is not often acknowl-edged by the critics and practitioners themselves14 It should be noted thatSchechnerrsquos position has shifted signi cantly since then15 over the last decade inparticular his critical work shows less of a tendency to idealize cross-culturalexchange and a keener awareness of power relations He also acknowledges the

misunderstandings broken languages and failed transactions that occurwhen and where cultures collide overlap or pull away from each otherThese are seen not as obstacles to be overcome but as fertile rifts or erup-tions full of creative potential (19913)

At the other end of the scale is the ethical critique of intercultural practice asinvasive globalization Daryl Chin argues that

Interculturalism hinges on the questions of autonomy and empowermentTo deploy elements from the symbol system of another culture is a verydelicate enterprise In its crudest terms the question is when does thatusage act as cultural imperialism Forcing elements from disparate culturestogether does not seem to be a solution that makes much sense aestheti-cally ethically or philosophically What does that prove that the knowl-edge of other cultures exists That information about other cultures nowis readily available (199194)

For Bharucha likewise interculturalism cannot be separated from a larger his-tory of colonialism and orientalism (see also Dasgupta 1991) He contends thatinterculturalism is an inherently ethnocentric practice which seeks to synthesizecultural difference rather than respect its individual histories

The problem arises [] when the preoccupation with the ldquoself rdquo over-powers the representation of ldquootherrdquo cultures [and] when the Other isnot another but the projection of onersquos ego Then all one has is a glori -cation of the self and a co-option of other cultures in the name of repre-sentation (199328)

John Russell Brown adds

Exchange borrowing trade or looting across major frontiers diminishesany theatre because it transgresses its inherited reliance on the societyfrom which the drama takes its life and for which it was intended to beperformed [] However worthily it is intended intercultural theatricalexchange is in fact a form of pillage and the result is fancy-dress pre-tence or at best the creation of a small zoo in which no creature has itsfull life (199814)

Cross-Cultural Theatre Praxis 41

Such moral critiques while absolutely essential to the politicizing of intercul-turalism risk instigating a kind of paralysis insofar as they suggest that virtuallyno form of theatrical exchange can be ethical16 This position is clearly untenablefor a number of practitioners especially those whose art is derived from (andaims to explore) experiences of cultural hybridity For instance performanceartisttheorist Guillermo Gomez-Pena a self-confessed ldquochild of crisis and cul-tural syncretismrdquo (199338) sees his own work (and the desirable future of Amer-ican theatre) as inevitably pluralistic unavoidably intercultural But he is alsoacutely aware of the implications of intercultural work noting that it is ldquofunda-mental to address relationships of power and assumptions about privilege amongthe participating artists communities and countriesrdquo in order to develop ethicalmodels of theatrical exchange (19969) To facilitate this Gomez-Pena calls for amuch more rigorous public debate about cultural issues in general about equityand diversity about de nitions of ldquomulti- inter- intra- and cross-culturalrdquoabout which encounters between cultures are ldquosymmetrical and desirable andwhich are more reactionaryrdquo (199357) In projects such as Temple of Confessions(1994) A Seminar on Museum Race Relations (1995) and Mexterminator Project(1999)mdashdeliberately provocative works that are at times even ldquounethicalrdquomdashGomez-Pena relentlessly stages aspects of this debate always avoiding de nitiveanswers

Theoretical Models of Interculturalism

While many critics have posed theoretical challenges to the intercultural en-terprise there have been surprisingly few attempts to formulate a comprehensivemodel of intercultural exchange Marvin Carlson has offered a scale consisting ofseven categories of cross-cultural in uence based on ldquopossible relationships be-tween the culturally familiar and the culturally foreignrdquo (199050) While usefulfor differentiating types of projects this scale does not move beyond an essentiallytaxonomic analysis of the eld Fischer-Lichte takes a different tack focusingspeci cally on the adaptation process which she insists follows a model of ldquopro-ductive receptionrdquo rather than one of translation (1997154ndash55) Productive re-ception emphasizes aspects of a performance caused or in uenced by receptionand is aligned in Fischer-Lichtersquos work with the project of revitalizing tired the-atrical practices though she does not elaborate on the precise dynamics involved

Pavis has thus far been the only critic able to sustain a comprehensive modelof intercultural exchange His hourglass model depicts in its upper bowl theforeign or source culture ldquowhich is more or less codi ed and solidi ed in diverseanthropological sociocultural or artistic modelizationsrdquo (19924) This is repre-sented by lters 1 and 2 in the diagram below The ldquograins of culturerdquo trickledown to the lower bowl and are rearranged in the process The lters 3 through11 put in place by the target culture and the observer largely determine the nalformation of the grains17 The model focuses on ldquothe intercultural transfer be-tween source and target culturerdquo as a way of depicting the relativity of the notionof culture and the complicated relationship between partners in the exchange(19925)

Critique of the Hourglass Model

In practice Pavisrsquos hourglass is an accurate model of most intercultural workof the extracultural kind But the modelrsquos strength is also its weakness it cannotaccount for alternative and more collaborative forms of intercultural exchangeDespite Pavisrsquos wariness of a translationcommunication model of intercultural-ism his elaboration of the process of cultural transfer reveals its dependence on

42 LoGilbert

translation theory The main problem with this model is that it assumes a one-way cultural ow based on a hierarchy of privilege even though Pavis attemptsto relativize the power relations by claiming that the hourglass can be turnedupside-down ldquoas soon as the users of a foreign culture ask themselves how theycan communicate their own culture to another target culturerdquo (19925) Thishowever assumes that there is a ldquolevel-playing eldrdquo between the partners in theexchange and does not account for the fact that the bene ts of globalization andthe permeability of cultures and political systems are accessed differentially fordifferent communities and nations

A translation model of interculturalism therefore runs the risk of reproducingstrategies of containment As Tejaswine Niranjana points out

By employing certain modes of representing the othermdashwhich it therebyalso brings into beingmdashtranslation reinforces hegemonic versions of thecolonized helping them acquire the status of what Edward Said calls rep-resentations or objects without history (19923)

Diagram 3 Pavisrsquos hour-glass Model of InterculturalTheatre

Cross-Cultural Theatre Praxis 43

Pavis is not unaware of this danger

If [the hourglass] is only a mill it will blend the source culture destroy itsevery speci city and drop into the lower bowl an inert and deformed sub-stance which will have lost its original modeling without being moldedinto that of the target culture If it is only a funnel it will indiscriminatelyabsorb the initial substance without reshaping it through the series of l-ters or leaving any trace of the original matter (19925)

Having said this however Pavis is unable to account for interculturalism as aprocess of political negotiation For example he argues that the mise-en-sceneas the central site of interculturalism functions as a ldquokind of reglage (lsquo ne-tuningrsquo)rdquo which mediates between different contexts cultural backgrounds andtraditions (19926) ldquoFine-tuningrdquo serves to smooth over differences in ways thatbecome intelligible for the target culture Similarly ldquoreception-adaptersrdquo ( lter8) ll the lacunae in the transfer of cultural content and dissipate the tensions ofincommensurability in order to create a ldquoreadablerdquo text for the target culture

The teleology of the hourglass model ultimately reduces interculturalexchangeto an alimentary process According to this logic the body belongs to the targetculture while the source culture becomes the food which must be digested andassimilated As Pavis notes only the grains that are ldquosuf ciently nerdquo will ldquo owthrough [the hourglass neck] without any troublerdquo (19924) His model cannotaccount for blockage collisions and retroaction as sites of either intervention orresistance In the nal analysis intercultural exchange according to the hourglassmodel is a reductive process which distills cultural difference into essences thatcan be readily absorbed by the target culture While Pavis does acknowledge thein uence of the social context ( lters 10B and 10C) the temporally bound meta-phor of the hourglass suggests that sociohistorical factors rather than in ectingthe entire intercultural process simply constitute the nal lter before the the-atrical product is consumed by the target culture In short the hourglass modelis premised on aesthetics rather than on politics

Pavis does not stray far from this model in his more recent theorization of the eld (1996) proffering instead a more careful schematization of different formsand modes of intercultural practice Although he does acknowledge the proble-matics of power inequities between partners in the exchange noting that ldquotherecan be no sense in which Asian perspectives are always reversible and symmetricalwith those of the Westmdashas a purely functionalist use of the hourglass turnedover and over ad in nitum might lead us naively to believerdquo (19962) there islittle sense that he has revised the translation principles underlying his model18

Pavis takes account of some of the recent ethical critiques of interculturalismandis particularly wary of it being absorbed into a postmodernist form of culturalrelativism Although he claims that ldquoexchange implies a theory and an ethics ofalterityrdquo (199611) he does not foreground the ethical dimension in any discern-ible way Signi cantly Pavis claims that the kind of intercultural practice thatholds the most potential for ldquoresistance against standardization against the Eu-ropeanization of super-productionsrdquo is the ldquointer-corporeal work in which anactor confronts hisher technique and professional identity with those of theothersrdquo (1996150) By locating the potential for agency at this microscopic levelof actor training Pavis reveals the limitations of the hourglass model as an effectivetemplate for a politicized theorization of the entire eld of interculturalism

Matrixing Interculturalism and Postcolonialism

One way of approaching the problems raised by Pavisrsquos model of interculturaltheatre is to consider its mechanisms through the lens of postcolonial theory

44 LoGilbert

Despite their shared concern with the phenomenon of cultural encounter the-ories of interculturalism and postcolonialism have thus far developed as more orless asymmetrical discourses the former having roots in theatre anthropology(viaVictor Turner) and semiotics the latter in literary and cultural studies as well asin psychoanalysis (via Frantz Fanon) and poststructuralism Of the two discoursespostcolonial theory has been the most consistently political taking as its primaryimperative the task of exposing and redressing unequal power relationships be-tween cultures whereas interculturalism has concerned itself more often with theaesthetics of cultural transfer What postcolonial theory offers to current debatesabout interculturalism is a framework for analyzing such thorny issues as agencyhybridity and authenticity issues that lie at the heart of intercultural praxis Withits insistent stress on historicity and speci city postcolonial theory offers ways ofrelocating the dynamics of intercultural theatre within identi able elds of so-ciopolitical and historical relations This contextualizing enables us to ask at anypoint in the production and reception processes of intercultural work questionsabout individual and collective power Whose economic andor political interestsare being served How is the working process represented to the target audienceand why Who is the target audience and how can differences be addressed withinthis constituency How does a speci c intercultural event impact on the widersociopolitical environment

The term ldquointerculturalrdquo suggests an exploration of the interstice betweencultures it draws our attention to the hyphenated third space separating andconnecting different peoples The act of crossing cultures (with reference to Dol-limorersquos notions of travesty hybridity and con ict) should ideally activate bothcentrifugal and centripetal forces in the process of mutual contamination andinteraction This is an aspect which Pavisrsquos unilinear model of interculturalismcannot take into account We would therefore like to propose an alternativemodel of intercultural exchange which for the purposes of this essay focuses onthe ldquobig picturerdquo and uses some of Pavisrsquos categories and terminologies Ourmodel is both a template for an intercultural practice that encourages more mu-tuality and an attempted representation of the mutuality that has already existedat some level even if it has been limited and nonre exive indeed suppressed inmuch theorizing of particular projects Our aim is to adapt what is essentially anappropriativeassimilationist model into a more collaborativenegotiated oneThe model we have in mind draws inspiration from a toy we used to play withas children in both Malaysia and Australia The toy consisted of a piece of elasticstrung through the middle of a plastic disc The elastic string is held at each endwith the disc supported in the center By rotating the hands in a circular motionthe disc is rotated outward Once the disc is rotating the elastic is alternatelytightened and released to continue the spinning of the disc The disc moves ineither direction along the string depending on whether the tension is generatedby the left or the right hand

In our model intercultural exchange is represented as a two-way ow Bothpartners are considered cultural sources while the target culture is positionedalong the continuum between them The location of the target culture is not xed its position remains uid and depending on where and how the exchangeprocess takes place shifts along the continuum For instance if the performancetakes place in the domain of source culture B then the position of the targetculture moves closer to source Brsquos end of the continuum This uidity not onlyforegrounds the dialogic nature of intercultural exchange but also takes into ac-count the possibility of power disparity in the partnership

Both source cultures bring to the theatrical project cultural apparatuses shapedby their respective sociocultural milieu ( lters 1 and 2) and both undergo a seriesof transformations and challenges in the process of exchange ( lters 3 through 9)

Cross-Cultural Theatre Praxis 45

SourceCulture B

1 cultural modeling2 artistic modeling3 work of adaptation4 preparatory work by

actors5 choice of theatrical

form6 artistic modeling of

target culture7 sociological amp

anthropologicalmodeling of targetculture

8 cultural modeling oftarget culture

9 given and anticipatedconsequences

SourceCulture A

cultural modeling

artistic modeling

work of adaptation

preparatory work byactors

choice of theatricalform

artistic modeling oftarget culture

sociological ampanthropologicalmodeling of targetculture

cultural modeling oftarget culture

given and anticipatedconsequences

SociopoliticalContext

InterculturalProcess for

TargetCulture

SociopoliticalContext

1234

5

6

7

8

9

in relation to each other and in anticipation of the target culture Even if thetarget culture is aligned with one of the source cultures both partners still undergoa similar process of ltration and hybridization however differently experiencedPositioned at the tension between source cultures intercultural exchange is char-acterized both by gain and by loss attraction and disavowal This dialogism isrepresented by the centrifugal and centripetal forces indicated in the diagramabove The proposed model locates all intercultural activity within an identi ablesociopolitical context This serves not only to foreground the inseparability ofartistic endeavors from sociopolitical relations but also to remind us that theoryand reading strategies are themselves deeply imbricated in speci c histories andpolitics

Our model of intercultural theatre rests on a notion of differentiated hybriditythat works in multiple and sometimes opposing ways19 Postcolonial theory haslong recognized that particular modes of hybridity are pinned to social politicaland economic factors which are conditioned in turn by historical experiencesof cultural encounters Extensive debate about the political purchase of hybridityhas prompted scholars such as Robert Young (1995) to distinguish between twokinds of hybridity organic and intentional Organic hybridity which has beenaligned with creolization and metissage is close to the fusion model oftenmanifestin intercultural theory It results in new cultural practices and identities withoutconscious contestation and serves a stabilizing function in settling cultural dif-ferences In this kind of hybridity agency inheres in cosmopolitanism the abilityto cross between cultures and to master their hybrid forms In contrast intentionalhybridity focuses on the process of negotiation between different practices andpoints of view It is characterized by division and separation and tends to be self-re exive with the negotiation process inevitably pinpointing areas of con ict In

Diagram 4 ProposedModel for Interculturalism

46 LoGilbert

this instance agency hinges on the degree to which cultural forms resist dilutionandor co-option According to Young the two categories of hybridity the in-tentional and the organic can be in operation at the same time resulting in anantithetical movement of coalescence and antagonism This offers a

dialectical model for cultural interaction an organic hybridity which willtend towards fusion in con ict with intentional hybridity which enables acontestatory activity a politicized setting of cultural differences againsteach other dialogically (199522)

Debates about hybridity in postcolonial theory tend to go hand in hand withdiscussions of authenticity Grif ths reminds us that ldquoauthenticityrdquo is a politicallycharged concept rather than a ldquonaturalrdquo or preexisting attribute While it may bepolitically exigent for non-Western peoples to deploy discourses of authenticityin order to bolster their cultural authority in the hands of Western critics andcommentators the sign of the ldquoauthenticrdquo can easily become a fetishized com-modity that grounds the legitimacy of other cultures ldquonot in their practice butin our desirerdquo (Grif ths 199482) That much intercultural theatre has been drivenby an intense interest in harnessing ldquotraditionalrdquo performance forms suggests weshould treat authenticity with caution recognizing that it registers and respondsto hierarchies of power In this context the ability to manipulate markers ofauthenticity becomes another measure of agency

Sites of Intervention

If postcolonialism is to denaturalize the universalist vision of the more egre-gious kinds of interculturalism it must bring into focus such aspects of theatre aslanguage space the body costume and spectatorship as ideologically laden signsystems as well as potential sites of hybridity By brie y outlining politicized waysof reading such sign systems20 we hope in the nal section of this essay to suggestpathways into intercultural projects that resist an unproblematized transfer of cul-ture

On the whole intercultural theatre has tended to favor visual spectacle overlinguistic innovation nevertheless there are signi cant language-based issues thatpertain to both its processes and products An elementary but immensely im-portant question is the matter of whose language is used for everyday commu-nication during the devising and rehearsing of speci c productions The fact thatEnglish has become the lingua franca in an increasingly globalized arts communitygives its native speakers considerable power to substantiate their views andorsecure their particular agendas In this respect we should remember that thewide-scale imposition of imperial languages on non-Western peoples has consti-tuted an insidious form of epistemic violence since the system of values inherentin a language becomes the ldquosystem upon which social economic and politicaldiscourses are groundedrdquo (Ashcroft Grif ths and Tif n 1995283) To ask whosevalues are heard and whose are silenced by the use of speci c languages thereforeseems essential to a more politicized form of interculturalism In addition wemight ask how linguistic translationsare conducted and whose interests they serveDoes the translator function as a negotiator or a type of ldquonative informantrdquo Whathappens to linguistic concepts that resist translation or adaptation In terms oftheatrical product language issues are equally complicated How do staged lan-guages animate one another Which carries the cultural authority What happensto the performative features of verbal enunciation particularly when stories frompredominantly oral cultures are presented How might we reread verbally silencedbodies in different ways

Cross-Cultural Theatre Praxis 47

Since intercultural theatre stages a meeting of cultures in both physical andimaginative realmsmdashthe actual place(s) where a project takes place as well as the ctional spaces represented by the mise-en-scenemdashits spatial semantics also de-mand analysis Space is neither neutral nor homogenous it inevitably colors thoserelationships within its limits especially on the stage where con gurations ofspace take on symbolic meaning We need to ask then how the physical spacemeeting place in ects intercultural collaborationWhose ground are we on Whatare the power relations inscribed in the architectural aspects of that place Howcan theatre provide a space for negotiatingor subverting the relationships its spatialcon gurations foster We also need to examine the ideological assumptions thatinhere in the imaginative space(s) created by the scenography What does the setfor instance convey about the cultures involved in the collaboration Whichactors and characters have access topriority over what spaces Where are theborders between cultures and how are they maintained traversed or brokendown What kind of cultural landscape is suggested by the stagescape

Postcolonial theorizing of geography cartography and spatial history showshow space is constructed in the nexus of power and culture rather than simplyexisting as an ontological category This kind of politicized approach brings intofocus the disjunctive gap between visible space and its ctional referent (what weinfer or imagine from our culturally in ected reading of proxemics) It is thenpossible to explore the rhizomatic potential of interculturalismmdashits ability to makemultiple connections and disconnections between cultural spacesmdashand to createrepresentations that are unbounded and open and potentially resistant to im-perialist forms of closure

The body in intercultural theatre is equally subject to multiple inscriptionsproducing an unstable signi er rather than a totalized identity It is a site of con-vergence for contesting discourses even though it may be marked with the dis-tinctive signs of a particular culture Postcolonial theory aims to foreground theways in which power is inscribed on and negotiated through the body Suchtheory continually questions what is spoken through the body how its languagesoperate and in the service of whose vested interests It maintains that the bodyis not only a site of knowledgepower but also a site of resistance which inElizabeth Groszrsquos words ldquoexerts a recalcitrance and always entails the possibilityof counterstrategic re-inscription [because] it is capable of being self-marked self-represented in alternative waysrdquo (199064) We need then to look at how resis-tance is expressed in relation to performative bodies how those bodies encodedifference and speci city and how they can prevent the universalizing impulseof transculturalism

As categories that are constructed through visible differences race and genderhave particular signi cance in this respect it is important to note however thatthese are complex and even unstable categories being historically conditionedrather than determined solely by biology One of the problems intercultural the-atre often faces is how to avoid essentialist constructions of race and gender whilestill accounting for the irreducible speci city of certain bodies and body behav-iors A common response is to elevate particular roles in source texts to the level ofarchetypes that can then be played by any skilled performer Peter Brookrsquos Ma-habharata has been accused of this approach (Dasgupta 1991 Bharucha 199368ndash87) This process of distillation strips the readable signs of culture from the sourcetext rather than provoke the audience to examine the tensions between partici-pating cultures There is no dialogic interaction instead a speci c body is sub-merged in the archetypal role according to the aesthetic principles of the projectPostcolonial theory warns against the dehistoricizing effects of such distillationprocesses It focuses on analyzing the gap between the material body and what itis supposed to represent This involves examining movement as well as bodily ap-

48 LoGilbert

pearance since as Pavis notes ldquoactors simultaneously reveal the culture of thecommunity where they have trained and where they live and the bodily tech-nique they have acquiredrdquo (19963) Rather than working from principles of ab-straction an intercultural practice informed by postcolonialism would play upcultural differences without attempting to deny the effects of the political econ-omy that underpins the project The hybrid counter-energies that result from theclash between the symbolic space and the culturally inscribed body can then pro-duce ldquoa radical heterogeneity discontinuity [and] the perpetual revolutionof formrdquo(Young 199525)

A politicized reading of costume is similarly necessary to the formulation of amore comprehensive theory about intercultural performance It seems that partof the attraction of interculturalism has to do with the fantasy of stepping intoldquonativerdquo costume in a process of cultural transvestism that does anything butsubvert power hierarchies As Gail Ching-Liang Low argues the fantasy of cross-cultural dressing identi es clothes as a ldquolsquobadge and advertisementrsquo of [the domi-nant culturersquos] ability to cross the class and cultural gaprdquo hence cultural transvestismoffers ldquothe promise of lsquotransgressiversquo pleasure without the penalties of actualchangerdquo (198992ndash93) If such transvestism could be used to draw attention tothe dif culties that inhere in crossing cultural gaps costume would then becomeanother possible site of resistant inscription rather than a conduit for the one-waycultural transfer that currently characterizes certain forms of interculturalismThisis where postcolonial theories about mimicry masquerade and self-consciousconstructions of subjectivity can come into play because they treat costume as amalleable and even ambiguous signi er rather than a transparent sign of particulargender racial social and national identities

Degrees of power and privilege are also embedded in the framing mechanismsthrough which particular elements of a performance are presented to its audi-ence(s) Typically intercultural theatre positions the performance traditions andoractual bodies of ldquootherrdquo cultures as focal points of the Western viewerrsquos specularconsumption and it is through this kind of untroubled and desiring gaze thatrei ed images of cultural difference are validated and circulated on the ldquointer-nationalrdquo arts market If intercultural theatre means to address the potential in-equities involved in Western appropriations of other cultural traditions then itsadherents must conceive of a theatre that somehow engages with its own estab-lished ldquolookingrdquo relations Interventionary frameworks and other metatheatricaldevicesmdashthese might range from direct audience address to self-conscious roleplaying to forum discussionmdashcan be used to problematize the implicitly im-perialist object-relations model of cross-cultural spectatorship Within the self-re exive theatre that we envision the hybridizing of cultural fragments wouldbe far from seamless cultural tensions would not be hidden nor difference nat-uralized

Conclusion

We have attempted to map the eld of cross-cultural theatre as a way of think-ing through its complexities and contradictions Despite our efforts to integratea diverse range of theories and practices into a ldquobig-picturerdquo account of the eldwe are not advocating a totalizing theory of cultural exchange Rather our dis-cussion is designed to enable a strategic way of rethinking the local and context-speci c through the global and vice versa This sort of matrixed model we wouldargue proffers a more nuanced method of actualizing and analyzing the range ofwork that is increasingly becoming a globalized praxis

Our all too brief survey of potential sites of intervention in the practice andinterpretation of intercultural theatre outlines some of the ways in which the

Cross-Cultural Theatre Praxis 49

mise-en-scene can be politicized and the notion of cultural hegemony relativizedIn an age where cultural boundaries are continually traversed and identities arebecoming increasingly hybridized an intercultural theatre practice informed bypostcolonial theory can potentially function as a site where this intersecting ofcultures is both re ected and critiqued Such a practice would align with (thoughnot necessarily replicate) Gomez-Penarsquos formulation of ldquoborder artrdquo in whichthe performerrsquos job is ldquoto trespass bridge interconnect reinterpret remap andrede nerdquo the limits of culture (199612) It is vital that intercultural theatrersquospotential to cross cultures is not co-opted and neutralized by the ldquoweakerrdquo formsof postmodernism which tend to result in an abstract depoliticized and ahis-torical notion of ldquodifferencerdquo or in effect a masked ldquoindifferencerdquo In this re-spect Homi Bhabharsquos clari cation of postcolonial hybridity as based on anagonistic relationship rather than a seamless fusion offers a workable model foran ethics as well as an aesthetics of cross-cultural engagement

Hybrid hyphenations emphasise the incommensurable elements [] as thebasis of cultural identi cations What is at issue is the performative natureof differential identities the regulation and negotiation of those spaces thatare continually contingently ldquoopening outrdquo remaking the boundariesexposing the limits of any claim to a singular or autonomous sign of dif-ferencemdashbe it class gender or race Such assignations of social differ-encesmdashwhere difference is neither One nor the Other but something elsebesides in-betweenmdash nd their agency in [] an interstitial future thatemerges in between the claims of the past and the needs of the present(1994219)

The kind of hyphenated hybridity that Bhabha outlines is already within theconceptual reach of interculturalism It is now time for a more sustained andsystematic engagement with the politics of its production

Notes

1 ldquoAgencyrdquo refers here to the potential to act or perform an action autonomously it registersdegrees of power and knowledge combined since to act autonomously is to understand theideological systems in which one is imbricated

2 For an extended discussion of multiculturalism in Canada Australia and the United Statessee Gunew (199351ndash65)

3 See Bennett (1996144ndash47) for examples of small ldquomrdquo multicultural theatre in which blind-cast productions of Shakespearersquos The Tempest unwittingly reproduced dominant culturalvalues

4 Guillermo Gomez-Pena critiques a similar model of intercultural encounter in his conceptof ldquocorporaterdquo or ldquotransnationalrdquo multiculturalism which he argues characterizes manybusiness and media conglomeratesrsquo current interest in difference Such difference performsthe ldquopassive roles of glossy images and exotic backgroundrdquo and real diversity is ldquo attenedand equalized by high production valuesrdquo (200112)

5 Examples of big ldquoMrdquo multicultural theatre include various projects done by El Teatro Cam-pesino (US) Talawa (Britain) Doppio Teatro and Urban Theatre Projects (Australia) andCahoots Theatre Projects (Canada) Of course there have been numerous projects (espe-cially in non-Western countries) that t within our de nition of multicultural theatre al-though the speci c practitioners involved may not identify their work in this way Examplesinclude projects by Five Arts Centre (Malaysia) William Kentridge and the HandspringPuppet Company (South Africa) Rustom Bharucha (India) and Gomez-Pena (USAMexico)

6 Our identi cation of ghetto and migrant theatres is in uenced by Richard Fotheringhamrsquoswork ([1987] 1992197ndash98)

7 For further explication of community theatre see Baz Kershaw (1992)

50 LoGilbert

8 For some time postcolonial theatre has been well theorized as a conceptual category albeita contested one however in-depth engagement with postcolonialism has been conspicu-ously absent from discussions of cross-cultural performance work in journals such as TDRSimilarly Patrice Pavisrsquos introduction to The Intercultural Performance Reader (1996) virtuallydismisses the eld of postcolonial theatre even though some of the bookrsquos contents clearly t within this grouping

9 Wole Soyinka Derek Walcott and Girish Karnad are the most prominent of a very largeand diverse group of dramatists who might be catagorized as ldquopostcolonialrdquo Well-knownindigenous theatre groups in countries permanently colonized by European powers includeKooemba Jdarra (Australia) Taki Rua Productions (New Zealand) Spiderwoman (USA) andNative Earth Performing Arts (Canada) See Gilbert and Tompkins (1996) for an extendedaccount of the eld

10 See the introduction to Christopher Balmersquos book Decolonizing the Stage Theatrical Syncre-tism and Post-Colonial Drama (1999) for an extended history of the conceptual category ofsyncretic theatre Balme has been the key theorist of this form of cross-cultural performancefor several years though he initially assessed its overarching function as cultural rapproche-ment rather than decolonization andor resistance

11 His notable theatre projects include Tooth of Crime (1973) Mother Courage (1975) The Pro-metheus Project (1983ndash85) and Three Sisters (1995ndash97)

12 The Tales from South Asia project as documented by Sharon Grady and Phillip Zarilli (1994)exhibits most of the features of the collaborative model The stated aims of the projectrsquosinitiators were to

develop a strategy of presentation and representation which engages an audienceandor students in ldquodifferencerdquo without stereotyping essentializing romanticizingthe ldquoother and keeping onersquos audience aware of contestation as a social realityrdquo(Grady and Zarilli 1994169)

13 Similar celebratory responses can be found in Williams (1992) and Wilshire and Wilshire(1989)

14 This position has been described elsewhere as ldquohappy hybridityrdquo (see Lo 2000)15 Schechnerrsquos 1989 article ldquoIntercultural Themesrdquo maps his thinking on the subject up to

the end of the 1980s see his 1996 interview with Pavis for a more recent account16 On a similar note Craig Latrell recently argued for a more complex reading of intercultural

exchange beyond the ldquovictim-victimizer narrativerdquo The non-Western cultures should notbe perceived as passive receivers of Western ideas but rather active manipulators of suchin uences (200045ndash46) His analysis of the speci city of theatrical agency is howeverweakened by the lack of attention to historical speci city and particularly the impact ofcolonialism in Singapore and Indonesia

17 For detailed explanation see Pavis (19924ndash20)18 Pavis adheres to the idea of turning the hourglass over for other perspectives but unlike

his earlier theorization which advocated the reversal as a way for the source culture tomonitor its own process of exchange the latest discussion appears to consolidate the primacyof the dominant culture

At the end of the process when spectators feel themselves buried alive under thesand of signs and symbols they have no other salvation than to give up and turn thehourglass upside down Then the perspective inverts and one must reverse andrelativize the sediments accumulated in the receiving culture and judge them fromthe point of view of alterity and relativity (199618)

19 For a fuller account of various modes of hybridity see Lo (2000152ndash55)20 See Gilbert (199813ndash25) for a more detailed discussion of the ways in which postcolonial

theory can be used to interpret ideological aspects of performance

References

Ambush Benny Sato1989 ldquoPluralism to the Bonerdquo American Theatre 615

Cross-Cultural Theatre Praxis 51

Ang Ien and John Stratton1994 ldquoMulticultural Imagined Communities Cultural Difference and National Iden-

tity in Australia and the USArdquo Continuum The Australian Journal of Media andCulture 8 2124ndash58

Ashcroft Bill Gareth Grif ths and Helen Tif n eds1995 The Post-Colonial Studies Reader London Routledge

Balme Christopher1999 Decolonizing the Stage Theatrical Syncretism and Post-Colonial Drama Oxford Ox-

ford University Press

Barba Eugenio1996 ldquoEurasian Theatrerdquo In The Intercultural Performance Reader edited by Patrice Pav-

ice 217ndash22 London Routledge

Bennett Susan1996 Performing Nostalgia Shifting Shakespeare and the ContemporaryPast LondonRout-

ledge

Bhabha Homi1994 The Location of Culture London Routledge

Bharucha Rustom1993 Theatre and the World Performance and the Politics of Culture London Routledge2000 The Politics of Cultural Practice Thinking through Theatre in an Age of Globalisation

London Athlone Press

Brandon James1990 ldquoContemporary Japanese Theatre Interculturalism and Intraculturalismrdquo In The

Dramatic Touch of Difference Theatre Own and Foreign edited by Erika Fischer-Lichte Michael Gissenwehrer and Josephine Riley 89ndash97 Tubingen Narr

Brown John Russell1998 ldquoTheatrical Pillage in Asia Redirecting the Intercultural Traf crdquo New Theatre

Quarterly 14 539ndash19

Carlson Marvin1990 ldquoPeter Brookrsquos The Mahabharata and Ariane Mnouchkinersquos LrsquoIndiade as Ex-

amples of Contemporary Cross-cultural Theatrerdquo In The Dramatic Touch of Dif-ference Theatre Own and Foreign edited by Erika Fischer-Lichte Michael Gissen-wehrer and Josephine Riley 49ndash56 Tubingen Narr

Carter David1986 ldquoThe Natives Are Getting Restless Nationalism Multiculturalism and Migrant

Writingrdquo Island Magazine 25263ndash8

Chin Daryl1991 ldquoInterculturalism Postmodernism Pluralismrdquo In Interculturalism and Performance

Writings from PAJ edited by Bonnie Marranca and Gautam Dasgupta 83ndash95New York PAJ Publications

Clifford James1994 ldquoDiasporasrdquo Cultural Anthropology 9 3 302ndash38

Dasgupta Gautam1991 ldquoThe Mahabharata Peter Brookrsquos Orientalismrdquo In Interculturalism and Perfor-

mance Writings from PAJ edited by Bonnie Marranca and Gautam Dasgupta 75ndash82 New York PAJ Publications

De Reuck Jenny2000 ldquolsquoThe mirror shattered into tiny piecesrsquo Reading Gender and Culture in the

Japan Foundation Asia Centrersquos LEARrdquo Intersections Online Asian Studies Journal3 6 httpwwwsshemurdocheduauintersectionsissue3jenny3html (12January 2001)

Cross-Cultural Theatre Praxis 41

Such moral critiques while absolutely essential to the politicizing of intercul-turalism risk instigating a kind of paralysis insofar as they suggest that virtuallyno form of theatrical exchange can be ethical16 This position is clearly untenablefor a number of practitioners especially those whose art is derived from (andaims to explore) experiences of cultural hybridity For instance performanceartisttheorist Guillermo Gomez-Pena a self-confessed ldquochild of crisis and cul-tural syncretismrdquo (199338) sees his own work (and the desirable future of Amer-ican theatre) as inevitably pluralistic unavoidably intercultural But he is alsoacutely aware of the implications of intercultural work noting that it is ldquofunda-mental to address relationships of power and assumptions about privilege amongthe participating artists communities and countriesrdquo in order to develop ethicalmodels of theatrical exchange (19969) To facilitate this Gomez-Pena calls for amuch more rigorous public debate about cultural issues in general about equityand diversity about de nitions of ldquomulti- inter- intra- and cross-culturalrdquoabout which encounters between cultures are ldquosymmetrical and desirable andwhich are more reactionaryrdquo (199357) In projects such as Temple of Confessions(1994) A Seminar on Museum Race Relations (1995) and Mexterminator Project(1999)mdashdeliberately provocative works that are at times even ldquounethicalrdquomdashGomez-Pena relentlessly stages aspects of this debate always avoiding de nitiveanswers

Theoretical Models of Interculturalism

While many critics have posed theoretical challenges to the intercultural en-terprise there have been surprisingly few attempts to formulate a comprehensivemodel of intercultural exchange Marvin Carlson has offered a scale consisting ofseven categories of cross-cultural in uence based on ldquopossible relationships be-tween the culturally familiar and the culturally foreignrdquo (199050) While usefulfor differentiating types of projects this scale does not move beyond an essentiallytaxonomic analysis of the eld Fischer-Lichte takes a different tack focusingspeci cally on the adaptation process which she insists follows a model of ldquopro-ductive receptionrdquo rather than one of translation (1997154ndash55) Productive re-ception emphasizes aspects of a performance caused or in uenced by receptionand is aligned in Fischer-Lichtersquos work with the project of revitalizing tired the-atrical practices though she does not elaborate on the precise dynamics involved

Pavis has thus far been the only critic able to sustain a comprehensive modelof intercultural exchange His hourglass model depicts in its upper bowl theforeign or source culture ldquowhich is more or less codi ed and solidi ed in diverseanthropological sociocultural or artistic modelizationsrdquo (19924) This is repre-sented by lters 1 and 2 in the diagram below The ldquograins of culturerdquo trickledown to the lower bowl and are rearranged in the process The lters 3 through11 put in place by the target culture and the observer largely determine the nalformation of the grains17 The model focuses on ldquothe intercultural transfer be-tween source and target culturerdquo as a way of depicting the relativity of the notionof culture and the complicated relationship between partners in the exchange(19925)

Critique of the Hourglass Model

In practice Pavisrsquos hourglass is an accurate model of most intercultural workof the extracultural kind But the modelrsquos strength is also its weakness it cannotaccount for alternative and more collaborative forms of intercultural exchangeDespite Pavisrsquos wariness of a translationcommunication model of intercultural-ism his elaboration of the process of cultural transfer reveals its dependence on

42 LoGilbert

translation theory The main problem with this model is that it assumes a one-way cultural ow based on a hierarchy of privilege even though Pavis attemptsto relativize the power relations by claiming that the hourglass can be turnedupside-down ldquoas soon as the users of a foreign culture ask themselves how theycan communicate their own culture to another target culturerdquo (19925) Thishowever assumes that there is a ldquolevel-playing eldrdquo between the partners in theexchange and does not account for the fact that the bene ts of globalization andthe permeability of cultures and political systems are accessed differentially fordifferent communities and nations

A translation model of interculturalism therefore runs the risk of reproducingstrategies of containment As Tejaswine Niranjana points out

By employing certain modes of representing the othermdashwhich it therebyalso brings into beingmdashtranslation reinforces hegemonic versions of thecolonized helping them acquire the status of what Edward Said calls rep-resentations or objects without history (19923)

Diagram 3 Pavisrsquos hour-glass Model of InterculturalTheatre

Cross-Cultural Theatre Praxis 43

Pavis is not unaware of this danger

If [the hourglass] is only a mill it will blend the source culture destroy itsevery speci city and drop into the lower bowl an inert and deformed sub-stance which will have lost its original modeling without being moldedinto that of the target culture If it is only a funnel it will indiscriminatelyabsorb the initial substance without reshaping it through the series of l-ters or leaving any trace of the original matter (19925)

Having said this however Pavis is unable to account for interculturalism as aprocess of political negotiation For example he argues that the mise-en-sceneas the central site of interculturalism functions as a ldquokind of reglage (lsquo ne-tuningrsquo)rdquo which mediates between different contexts cultural backgrounds andtraditions (19926) ldquoFine-tuningrdquo serves to smooth over differences in ways thatbecome intelligible for the target culture Similarly ldquoreception-adaptersrdquo ( lter8) ll the lacunae in the transfer of cultural content and dissipate the tensions ofincommensurability in order to create a ldquoreadablerdquo text for the target culture

The teleology of the hourglass model ultimately reduces interculturalexchangeto an alimentary process According to this logic the body belongs to the targetculture while the source culture becomes the food which must be digested andassimilated As Pavis notes only the grains that are ldquosuf ciently nerdquo will ldquo owthrough [the hourglass neck] without any troublerdquo (19924) His model cannotaccount for blockage collisions and retroaction as sites of either intervention orresistance In the nal analysis intercultural exchange according to the hourglassmodel is a reductive process which distills cultural difference into essences thatcan be readily absorbed by the target culture While Pavis does acknowledge thein uence of the social context ( lters 10B and 10C) the temporally bound meta-phor of the hourglass suggests that sociohistorical factors rather than in ectingthe entire intercultural process simply constitute the nal lter before the the-atrical product is consumed by the target culture In short the hourglass modelis premised on aesthetics rather than on politics

Pavis does not stray far from this model in his more recent theorization of the eld (1996) proffering instead a more careful schematization of different formsand modes of intercultural practice Although he does acknowledge the proble-matics of power inequities between partners in the exchange noting that ldquotherecan be no sense in which Asian perspectives are always reversible and symmetricalwith those of the Westmdashas a purely functionalist use of the hourglass turnedover and over ad in nitum might lead us naively to believerdquo (19962) there islittle sense that he has revised the translation principles underlying his model18

Pavis takes account of some of the recent ethical critiques of interculturalismandis particularly wary of it being absorbed into a postmodernist form of culturalrelativism Although he claims that ldquoexchange implies a theory and an ethics ofalterityrdquo (199611) he does not foreground the ethical dimension in any discern-ible way Signi cantly Pavis claims that the kind of intercultural practice thatholds the most potential for ldquoresistance against standardization against the Eu-ropeanization of super-productionsrdquo is the ldquointer-corporeal work in which anactor confronts hisher technique and professional identity with those of theothersrdquo (1996150) By locating the potential for agency at this microscopic levelof actor training Pavis reveals the limitations of the hourglass model as an effectivetemplate for a politicized theorization of the entire eld of interculturalism

Matrixing Interculturalism and Postcolonialism

One way of approaching the problems raised by Pavisrsquos model of interculturaltheatre is to consider its mechanisms through the lens of postcolonial theory

44 LoGilbert

Despite their shared concern with the phenomenon of cultural encounter the-ories of interculturalism and postcolonialism have thus far developed as more orless asymmetrical discourses the former having roots in theatre anthropology(viaVictor Turner) and semiotics the latter in literary and cultural studies as well asin psychoanalysis (via Frantz Fanon) and poststructuralism Of the two discoursespostcolonial theory has been the most consistently political taking as its primaryimperative the task of exposing and redressing unequal power relationships be-tween cultures whereas interculturalism has concerned itself more often with theaesthetics of cultural transfer What postcolonial theory offers to current debatesabout interculturalism is a framework for analyzing such thorny issues as agencyhybridity and authenticity issues that lie at the heart of intercultural praxis Withits insistent stress on historicity and speci city postcolonial theory offers ways ofrelocating the dynamics of intercultural theatre within identi able elds of so-ciopolitical and historical relations This contextualizing enables us to ask at anypoint in the production and reception processes of intercultural work questionsabout individual and collective power Whose economic andor political interestsare being served How is the working process represented to the target audienceand why Who is the target audience and how can differences be addressed withinthis constituency How does a speci c intercultural event impact on the widersociopolitical environment

The term ldquointerculturalrdquo suggests an exploration of the interstice betweencultures it draws our attention to the hyphenated third space separating andconnecting different peoples The act of crossing cultures (with reference to Dol-limorersquos notions of travesty hybridity and con ict) should ideally activate bothcentrifugal and centripetal forces in the process of mutual contamination andinteraction This is an aspect which Pavisrsquos unilinear model of interculturalismcannot take into account We would therefore like to propose an alternativemodel of intercultural exchange which for the purposes of this essay focuses onthe ldquobig picturerdquo and uses some of Pavisrsquos categories and terminologies Ourmodel is both a template for an intercultural practice that encourages more mu-tuality and an attempted representation of the mutuality that has already existedat some level even if it has been limited and nonre exive indeed suppressed inmuch theorizing of particular projects Our aim is to adapt what is essentially anappropriativeassimilationist model into a more collaborativenegotiated oneThe model we have in mind draws inspiration from a toy we used to play withas children in both Malaysia and Australia The toy consisted of a piece of elasticstrung through the middle of a plastic disc The elastic string is held at each endwith the disc supported in the center By rotating the hands in a circular motionthe disc is rotated outward Once the disc is rotating the elastic is alternatelytightened and released to continue the spinning of the disc The disc moves ineither direction along the string depending on whether the tension is generatedby the left or the right hand

In our model intercultural exchange is represented as a two-way ow Bothpartners are considered cultural sources while the target culture is positionedalong the continuum between them The location of the target culture is not xed its position remains uid and depending on where and how the exchangeprocess takes place shifts along the continuum For instance if the performancetakes place in the domain of source culture B then the position of the targetculture moves closer to source Brsquos end of the continuum This uidity not onlyforegrounds the dialogic nature of intercultural exchange but also takes into ac-count the possibility of power disparity in the partnership

Both source cultures bring to the theatrical project cultural apparatuses shapedby their respective sociocultural milieu ( lters 1 and 2) and both undergo a seriesof transformations and challenges in the process of exchange ( lters 3 through 9)

Cross-Cultural Theatre Praxis 45

SourceCulture B

1 cultural modeling2 artistic modeling3 work of adaptation4 preparatory work by

actors5 choice of theatrical

form6 artistic modeling of

target culture7 sociological amp

anthropologicalmodeling of targetculture

8 cultural modeling oftarget culture

9 given and anticipatedconsequences

SourceCulture A

cultural modeling

artistic modeling

work of adaptation

preparatory work byactors

choice of theatricalform

artistic modeling oftarget culture

sociological ampanthropologicalmodeling of targetculture

cultural modeling oftarget culture

given and anticipatedconsequences

SociopoliticalContext

InterculturalProcess for

TargetCulture

SociopoliticalContext

1234

5

6

7

8

9

in relation to each other and in anticipation of the target culture Even if thetarget culture is aligned with one of the source cultures both partners still undergoa similar process of ltration and hybridization however differently experiencedPositioned at the tension between source cultures intercultural exchange is char-acterized both by gain and by loss attraction and disavowal This dialogism isrepresented by the centrifugal and centripetal forces indicated in the diagramabove The proposed model locates all intercultural activity within an identi ablesociopolitical context This serves not only to foreground the inseparability ofartistic endeavors from sociopolitical relations but also to remind us that theoryand reading strategies are themselves deeply imbricated in speci c histories andpolitics

Our model of intercultural theatre rests on a notion of differentiated hybriditythat works in multiple and sometimes opposing ways19 Postcolonial theory haslong recognized that particular modes of hybridity are pinned to social politicaland economic factors which are conditioned in turn by historical experiencesof cultural encounters Extensive debate about the political purchase of hybridityhas prompted scholars such as Robert Young (1995) to distinguish between twokinds of hybridity organic and intentional Organic hybridity which has beenaligned with creolization and metissage is close to the fusion model oftenmanifestin intercultural theory It results in new cultural practices and identities withoutconscious contestation and serves a stabilizing function in settling cultural dif-ferences In this kind of hybridity agency inheres in cosmopolitanism the abilityto cross between cultures and to master their hybrid forms In contrast intentionalhybridity focuses on the process of negotiation between different practices andpoints of view It is characterized by division and separation and tends to be self-re exive with the negotiation process inevitably pinpointing areas of con ict In

Diagram 4 ProposedModel for Interculturalism

46 LoGilbert

this instance agency hinges on the degree to which cultural forms resist dilutionandor co-option According to Young the two categories of hybridity the in-tentional and the organic can be in operation at the same time resulting in anantithetical movement of coalescence and antagonism This offers a

dialectical model for cultural interaction an organic hybridity which willtend towards fusion in con ict with intentional hybridity which enables acontestatory activity a politicized setting of cultural differences againsteach other dialogically (199522)

Debates about hybridity in postcolonial theory tend to go hand in hand withdiscussions of authenticity Grif ths reminds us that ldquoauthenticityrdquo is a politicallycharged concept rather than a ldquonaturalrdquo or preexisting attribute While it may bepolitically exigent for non-Western peoples to deploy discourses of authenticityin order to bolster their cultural authority in the hands of Western critics andcommentators the sign of the ldquoauthenticrdquo can easily become a fetishized com-modity that grounds the legitimacy of other cultures ldquonot in their practice butin our desirerdquo (Grif ths 199482) That much intercultural theatre has been drivenby an intense interest in harnessing ldquotraditionalrdquo performance forms suggests weshould treat authenticity with caution recognizing that it registers and respondsto hierarchies of power In this context the ability to manipulate markers ofauthenticity becomes another measure of agency

Sites of Intervention

If postcolonialism is to denaturalize the universalist vision of the more egre-gious kinds of interculturalism it must bring into focus such aspects of theatre aslanguage space the body costume and spectatorship as ideologically laden signsystems as well as potential sites of hybridity By brie y outlining politicized waysof reading such sign systems20 we hope in the nal section of this essay to suggestpathways into intercultural projects that resist an unproblematized transfer of cul-ture

On the whole intercultural theatre has tended to favor visual spectacle overlinguistic innovation nevertheless there are signi cant language-based issues thatpertain to both its processes and products An elementary but immensely im-portant question is the matter of whose language is used for everyday commu-nication during the devising and rehearsing of speci c productions The fact thatEnglish has become the lingua franca in an increasingly globalized arts communitygives its native speakers considerable power to substantiate their views andorsecure their particular agendas In this respect we should remember that thewide-scale imposition of imperial languages on non-Western peoples has consti-tuted an insidious form of epistemic violence since the system of values inherentin a language becomes the ldquosystem upon which social economic and politicaldiscourses are groundedrdquo (Ashcroft Grif ths and Tif n 1995283) To ask whosevalues are heard and whose are silenced by the use of speci c languages thereforeseems essential to a more politicized form of interculturalism In addition wemight ask how linguistic translationsare conducted and whose interests they serveDoes the translator function as a negotiator or a type of ldquonative informantrdquo Whathappens to linguistic concepts that resist translation or adaptation In terms oftheatrical product language issues are equally complicated How do staged lan-guages animate one another Which carries the cultural authority What happensto the performative features of verbal enunciation particularly when stories frompredominantly oral cultures are presented How might we reread verbally silencedbodies in different ways

Cross-Cultural Theatre Praxis 47

Since intercultural theatre stages a meeting of cultures in both physical andimaginative realmsmdashthe actual place(s) where a project takes place as well as the ctional spaces represented by the mise-en-scenemdashits spatial semantics also de-mand analysis Space is neither neutral nor homogenous it inevitably colors thoserelationships within its limits especially on the stage where con gurations ofspace take on symbolic meaning We need to ask then how the physical spacemeeting place in ects intercultural collaborationWhose ground are we on Whatare the power relations inscribed in the architectural aspects of that place Howcan theatre provide a space for negotiatingor subverting the relationships its spatialcon gurations foster We also need to examine the ideological assumptions thatinhere in the imaginative space(s) created by the scenography What does the setfor instance convey about the cultures involved in the collaboration Whichactors and characters have access topriority over what spaces Where are theborders between cultures and how are they maintained traversed or brokendown What kind of cultural landscape is suggested by the stagescape

Postcolonial theorizing of geography cartography and spatial history showshow space is constructed in the nexus of power and culture rather than simplyexisting as an ontological category This kind of politicized approach brings intofocus the disjunctive gap between visible space and its ctional referent (what weinfer or imagine from our culturally in ected reading of proxemics) It is thenpossible to explore the rhizomatic potential of interculturalismmdashits ability to makemultiple connections and disconnections between cultural spacesmdashand to createrepresentations that are unbounded and open and potentially resistant to im-perialist forms of closure

The body in intercultural theatre is equally subject to multiple inscriptionsproducing an unstable signi er rather than a totalized identity It is a site of con-vergence for contesting discourses even though it may be marked with the dis-tinctive signs of a particular culture Postcolonial theory aims to foreground theways in which power is inscribed on and negotiated through the body Suchtheory continually questions what is spoken through the body how its languagesoperate and in the service of whose vested interests It maintains that the bodyis not only a site of knowledgepower but also a site of resistance which inElizabeth Groszrsquos words ldquoexerts a recalcitrance and always entails the possibilityof counterstrategic re-inscription [because] it is capable of being self-marked self-represented in alternative waysrdquo (199064) We need then to look at how resis-tance is expressed in relation to performative bodies how those bodies encodedifference and speci city and how they can prevent the universalizing impulseof transculturalism

As categories that are constructed through visible differences race and genderhave particular signi cance in this respect it is important to note however thatthese are complex and even unstable categories being historically conditionedrather than determined solely by biology One of the problems intercultural the-atre often faces is how to avoid essentialist constructions of race and gender whilestill accounting for the irreducible speci city of certain bodies and body behav-iors A common response is to elevate particular roles in source texts to the level ofarchetypes that can then be played by any skilled performer Peter Brookrsquos Ma-habharata has been accused of this approach (Dasgupta 1991 Bharucha 199368ndash87) This process of distillation strips the readable signs of culture from the sourcetext rather than provoke the audience to examine the tensions between partici-pating cultures There is no dialogic interaction instead a speci c body is sub-merged in the archetypal role according to the aesthetic principles of the projectPostcolonial theory warns against the dehistoricizing effects of such distillationprocesses It focuses on analyzing the gap between the material body and what itis supposed to represent This involves examining movement as well as bodily ap-

48 LoGilbert

pearance since as Pavis notes ldquoactors simultaneously reveal the culture of thecommunity where they have trained and where they live and the bodily tech-nique they have acquiredrdquo (19963) Rather than working from principles of ab-straction an intercultural practice informed by postcolonialism would play upcultural differences without attempting to deny the effects of the political econ-omy that underpins the project The hybrid counter-energies that result from theclash between the symbolic space and the culturally inscribed body can then pro-duce ldquoa radical heterogeneity discontinuity [and] the perpetual revolutionof formrdquo(Young 199525)

A politicized reading of costume is similarly necessary to the formulation of amore comprehensive theory about intercultural performance It seems that partof the attraction of interculturalism has to do with the fantasy of stepping intoldquonativerdquo costume in a process of cultural transvestism that does anything butsubvert power hierarchies As Gail Ching-Liang Low argues the fantasy of cross-cultural dressing identi es clothes as a ldquolsquobadge and advertisementrsquo of [the domi-nant culturersquos] ability to cross the class and cultural gaprdquo hence cultural transvestismoffers ldquothe promise of lsquotransgressiversquo pleasure without the penalties of actualchangerdquo (198992ndash93) If such transvestism could be used to draw attention tothe dif culties that inhere in crossing cultural gaps costume would then becomeanother possible site of resistant inscription rather than a conduit for the one-waycultural transfer that currently characterizes certain forms of interculturalismThisis where postcolonial theories about mimicry masquerade and self-consciousconstructions of subjectivity can come into play because they treat costume as amalleable and even ambiguous signi er rather than a transparent sign of particulargender racial social and national identities

Degrees of power and privilege are also embedded in the framing mechanismsthrough which particular elements of a performance are presented to its audi-ence(s) Typically intercultural theatre positions the performance traditions andoractual bodies of ldquootherrdquo cultures as focal points of the Western viewerrsquos specularconsumption and it is through this kind of untroubled and desiring gaze thatrei ed images of cultural difference are validated and circulated on the ldquointer-nationalrdquo arts market If intercultural theatre means to address the potential in-equities involved in Western appropriations of other cultural traditions then itsadherents must conceive of a theatre that somehow engages with its own estab-lished ldquolookingrdquo relations Interventionary frameworks and other metatheatricaldevicesmdashthese might range from direct audience address to self-conscious roleplaying to forum discussionmdashcan be used to problematize the implicitly im-perialist object-relations model of cross-cultural spectatorship Within the self-re exive theatre that we envision the hybridizing of cultural fragments wouldbe far from seamless cultural tensions would not be hidden nor difference nat-uralized

Conclusion

We have attempted to map the eld of cross-cultural theatre as a way of think-ing through its complexities and contradictions Despite our efforts to integratea diverse range of theories and practices into a ldquobig-picturerdquo account of the eldwe are not advocating a totalizing theory of cultural exchange Rather our dis-cussion is designed to enable a strategic way of rethinking the local and context-speci c through the global and vice versa This sort of matrixed model we wouldargue proffers a more nuanced method of actualizing and analyzing the range ofwork that is increasingly becoming a globalized praxis

Our all too brief survey of potential sites of intervention in the practice andinterpretation of intercultural theatre outlines some of the ways in which the

Cross-Cultural Theatre Praxis 49

mise-en-scene can be politicized and the notion of cultural hegemony relativizedIn an age where cultural boundaries are continually traversed and identities arebecoming increasingly hybridized an intercultural theatre practice informed bypostcolonial theory can potentially function as a site where this intersecting ofcultures is both re ected and critiqued Such a practice would align with (thoughnot necessarily replicate) Gomez-Penarsquos formulation of ldquoborder artrdquo in whichthe performerrsquos job is ldquoto trespass bridge interconnect reinterpret remap andrede nerdquo the limits of culture (199612) It is vital that intercultural theatrersquospotential to cross cultures is not co-opted and neutralized by the ldquoweakerrdquo formsof postmodernism which tend to result in an abstract depoliticized and ahis-torical notion of ldquodifferencerdquo or in effect a masked ldquoindifferencerdquo In this re-spect Homi Bhabharsquos clari cation of postcolonial hybridity as based on anagonistic relationship rather than a seamless fusion offers a workable model foran ethics as well as an aesthetics of cross-cultural engagement

Hybrid hyphenations emphasise the incommensurable elements [] as thebasis of cultural identi cations What is at issue is the performative natureof differential identities the regulation and negotiation of those spaces thatare continually contingently ldquoopening outrdquo remaking the boundariesexposing the limits of any claim to a singular or autonomous sign of dif-ferencemdashbe it class gender or race Such assignations of social differ-encesmdashwhere difference is neither One nor the Other but something elsebesides in-betweenmdash nd their agency in [] an interstitial future thatemerges in between the claims of the past and the needs of the present(1994219)

The kind of hyphenated hybridity that Bhabha outlines is already within theconceptual reach of interculturalism It is now time for a more sustained andsystematic engagement with the politics of its production

Notes

1 ldquoAgencyrdquo refers here to the potential to act or perform an action autonomously it registersdegrees of power and knowledge combined since to act autonomously is to understand theideological systems in which one is imbricated

2 For an extended discussion of multiculturalism in Canada Australia and the United Statessee Gunew (199351ndash65)

3 See Bennett (1996144ndash47) for examples of small ldquomrdquo multicultural theatre in which blind-cast productions of Shakespearersquos The Tempest unwittingly reproduced dominant culturalvalues

4 Guillermo Gomez-Pena critiques a similar model of intercultural encounter in his conceptof ldquocorporaterdquo or ldquotransnationalrdquo multiculturalism which he argues characterizes manybusiness and media conglomeratesrsquo current interest in difference Such difference performsthe ldquopassive roles of glossy images and exotic backgroundrdquo and real diversity is ldquo attenedand equalized by high production valuesrdquo (200112)

5 Examples of big ldquoMrdquo multicultural theatre include various projects done by El Teatro Cam-pesino (US) Talawa (Britain) Doppio Teatro and Urban Theatre Projects (Australia) andCahoots Theatre Projects (Canada) Of course there have been numerous projects (espe-cially in non-Western countries) that t within our de nition of multicultural theatre al-though the speci c practitioners involved may not identify their work in this way Examplesinclude projects by Five Arts Centre (Malaysia) William Kentridge and the HandspringPuppet Company (South Africa) Rustom Bharucha (India) and Gomez-Pena (USAMexico)

6 Our identi cation of ghetto and migrant theatres is in uenced by Richard Fotheringhamrsquoswork ([1987] 1992197ndash98)

7 For further explication of community theatre see Baz Kershaw (1992)

50 LoGilbert

8 For some time postcolonial theatre has been well theorized as a conceptual category albeita contested one however in-depth engagement with postcolonialism has been conspicu-ously absent from discussions of cross-cultural performance work in journals such as TDRSimilarly Patrice Pavisrsquos introduction to The Intercultural Performance Reader (1996) virtuallydismisses the eld of postcolonial theatre even though some of the bookrsquos contents clearly t within this grouping

9 Wole Soyinka Derek Walcott and Girish Karnad are the most prominent of a very largeand diverse group of dramatists who might be catagorized as ldquopostcolonialrdquo Well-knownindigenous theatre groups in countries permanently colonized by European powers includeKooemba Jdarra (Australia) Taki Rua Productions (New Zealand) Spiderwoman (USA) andNative Earth Performing Arts (Canada) See Gilbert and Tompkins (1996) for an extendedaccount of the eld

10 See the introduction to Christopher Balmersquos book Decolonizing the Stage Theatrical Syncre-tism and Post-Colonial Drama (1999) for an extended history of the conceptual category ofsyncretic theatre Balme has been the key theorist of this form of cross-cultural performancefor several years though he initially assessed its overarching function as cultural rapproche-ment rather than decolonization andor resistance

11 His notable theatre projects include Tooth of Crime (1973) Mother Courage (1975) The Pro-metheus Project (1983ndash85) and Three Sisters (1995ndash97)

12 The Tales from South Asia project as documented by Sharon Grady and Phillip Zarilli (1994)exhibits most of the features of the collaborative model The stated aims of the projectrsquosinitiators were to

develop a strategy of presentation and representation which engages an audienceandor students in ldquodifferencerdquo without stereotyping essentializing romanticizingthe ldquoother and keeping onersquos audience aware of contestation as a social realityrdquo(Grady and Zarilli 1994169)

13 Similar celebratory responses can be found in Williams (1992) and Wilshire and Wilshire(1989)

14 This position has been described elsewhere as ldquohappy hybridityrdquo (see Lo 2000)15 Schechnerrsquos 1989 article ldquoIntercultural Themesrdquo maps his thinking on the subject up to

the end of the 1980s see his 1996 interview with Pavis for a more recent account16 On a similar note Craig Latrell recently argued for a more complex reading of intercultural

exchange beyond the ldquovictim-victimizer narrativerdquo The non-Western cultures should notbe perceived as passive receivers of Western ideas but rather active manipulators of suchin uences (200045ndash46) His analysis of the speci city of theatrical agency is howeverweakened by the lack of attention to historical speci city and particularly the impact ofcolonialism in Singapore and Indonesia

17 For detailed explanation see Pavis (19924ndash20)18 Pavis adheres to the idea of turning the hourglass over for other perspectives but unlike

his earlier theorization which advocated the reversal as a way for the source culture tomonitor its own process of exchange the latest discussion appears to consolidate the primacyof the dominant culture

At the end of the process when spectators feel themselves buried alive under thesand of signs and symbols they have no other salvation than to give up and turn thehourglass upside down Then the perspective inverts and one must reverse andrelativize the sediments accumulated in the receiving culture and judge them fromthe point of view of alterity and relativity (199618)

19 For a fuller account of various modes of hybridity see Lo (2000152ndash55)20 See Gilbert (199813ndash25) for a more detailed discussion of the ways in which postcolonial

theory can be used to interpret ideological aspects of performance

References

Ambush Benny Sato1989 ldquoPluralism to the Bonerdquo American Theatre 615

Cross-Cultural Theatre Praxis 51

Ang Ien and John Stratton1994 ldquoMulticultural Imagined Communities Cultural Difference and National Iden-

tity in Australia and the USArdquo Continuum The Australian Journal of Media andCulture 8 2124ndash58

Ashcroft Bill Gareth Grif ths and Helen Tif n eds1995 The Post-Colonial Studies Reader London Routledge

Balme Christopher1999 Decolonizing the Stage Theatrical Syncretism and Post-Colonial Drama Oxford Ox-

ford University Press

Barba Eugenio1996 ldquoEurasian Theatrerdquo In The Intercultural Performance Reader edited by Patrice Pav-

ice 217ndash22 London Routledge

Bennett Susan1996 Performing Nostalgia Shifting Shakespeare and the ContemporaryPast LondonRout-

ledge

Bhabha Homi1994 The Location of Culture London Routledge

Bharucha Rustom1993 Theatre and the World Performance and the Politics of Culture London Routledge2000 The Politics of Cultural Practice Thinking through Theatre in an Age of Globalisation

London Athlone Press

Brandon James1990 ldquoContemporary Japanese Theatre Interculturalism and Intraculturalismrdquo In The

Dramatic Touch of Difference Theatre Own and Foreign edited by Erika Fischer-Lichte Michael Gissenwehrer and Josephine Riley 89ndash97 Tubingen Narr

Brown John Russell1998 ldquoTheatrical Pillage in Asia Redirecting the Intercultural Traf crdquo New Theatre

Quarterly 14 539ndash19

Carlson Marvin1990 ldquoPeter Brookrsquos The Mahabharata and Ariane Mnouchkinersquos LrsquoIndiade as Ex-

amples of Contemporary Cross-cultural Theatrerdquo In The Dramatic Touch of Dif-ference Theatre Own and Foreign edited by Erika Fischer-Lichte Michael Gissen-wehrer and Josephine Riley 49ndash56 Tubingen Narr

Carter David1986 ldquoThe Natives Are Getting Restless Nationalism Multiculturalism and Migrant

Writingrdquo Island Magazine 25263ndash8

Chin Daryl1991 ldquoInterculturalism Postmodernism Pluralismrdquo In Interculturalism and Performance

Writings from PAJ edited by Bonnie Marranca and Gautam Dasgupta 83ndash95New York PAJ Publications

Clifford James1994 ldquoDiasporasrdquo Cultural Anthropology 9 3 302ndash38

Dasgupta Gautam1991 ldquoThe Mahabharata Peter Brookrsquos Orientalismrdquo In Interculturalism and Perfor-

mance Writings from PAJ edited by Bonnie Marranca and Gautam Dasgupta 75ndash82 New York PAJ Publications

De Reuck Jenny2000 ldquolsquoThe mirror shattered into tiny piecesrsquo Reading Gender and Culture in the

Japan Foundation Asia Centrersquos LEARrdquo Intersections Online Asian Studies Journal3 6 httpwwwsshemurdocheduauintersectionsissue3jenny3html (12January 2001)

42 LoGilbert

translation theory The main problem with this model is that it assumes a one-way cultural ow based on a hierarchy of privilege even though Pavis attemptsto relativize the power relations by claiming that the hourglass can be turnedupside-down ldquoas soon as the users of a foreign culture ask themselves how theycan communicate their own culture to another target culturerdquo (19925) Thishowever assumes that there is a ldquolevel-playing eldrdquo between the partners in theexchange and does not account for the fact that the bene ts of globalization andthe permeability of cultures and political systems are accessed differentially fordifferent communities and nations

A translation model of interculturalism therefore runs the risk of reproducingstrategies of containment As Tejaswine Niranjana points out

By employing certain modes of representing the othermdashwhich it therebyalso brings into beingmdashtranslation reinforces hegemonic versions of thecolonized helping them acquire the status of what Edward Said calls rep-resentations or objects without history (19923)

Diagram 3 Pavisrsquos hour-glass Model of InterculturalTheatre

Cross-Cultural Theatre Praxis 43

Pavis is not unaware of this danger

If [the hourglass] is only a mill it will blend the source culture destroy itsevery speci city and drop into the lower bowl an inert and deformed sub-stance which will have lost its original modeling without being moldedinto that of the target culture If it is only a funnel it will indiscriminatelyabsorb the initial substance without reshaping it through the series of l-ters or leaving any trace of the original matter (19925)

Having said this however Pavis is unable to account for interculturalism as aprocess of political negotiation For example he argues that the mise-en-sceneas the central site of interculturalism functions as a ldquokind of reglage (lsquo ne-tuningrsquo)rdquo which mediates between different contexts cultural backgrounds andtraditions (19926) ldquoFine-tuningrdquo serves to smooth over differences in ways thatbecome intelligible for the target culture Similarly ldquoreception-adaptersrdquo ( lter8) ll the lacunae in the transfer of cultural content and dissipate the tensions ofincommensurability in order to create a ldquoreadablerdquo text for the target culture

The teleology of the hourglass model ultimately reduces interculturalexchangeto an alimentary process According to this logic the body belongs to the targetculture while the source culture becomes the food which must be digested andassimilated As Pavis notes only the grains that are ldquosuf ciently nerdquo will ldquo owthrough [the hourglass neck] without any troublerdquo (19924) His model cannotaccount for blockage collisions and retroaction as sites of either intervention orresistance In the nal analysis intercultural exchange according to the hourglassmodel is a reductive process which distills cultural difference into essences thatcan be readily absorbed by the target culture While Pavis does acknowledge thein uence of the social context ( lters 10B and 10C) the temporally bound meta-phor of the hourglass suggests that sociohistorical factors rather than in ectingthe entire intercultural process simply constitute the nal lter before the the-atrical product is consumed by the target culture In short the hourglass modelis premised on aesthetics rather than on politics

Pavis does not stray far from this model in his more recent theorization of the eld (1996) proffering instead a more careful schematization of different formsand modes of intercultural practice Although he does acknowledge the proble-matics of power inequities between partners in the exchange noting that ldquotherecan be no sense in which Asian perspectives are always reversible and symmetricalwith those of the Westmdashas a purely functionalist use of the hourglass turnedover and over ad in nitum might lead us naively to believerdquo (19962) there islittle sense that he has revised the translation principles underlying his model18

Pavis takes account of some of the recent ethical critiques of interculturalismandis particularly wary of it being absorbed into a postmodernist form of culturalrelativism Although he claims that ldquoexchange implies a theory and an ethics ofalterityrdquo (199611) he does not foreground the ethical dimension in any discern-ible way Signi cantly Pavis claims that the kind of intercultural practice thatholds the most potential for ldquoresistance against standardization against the Eu-ropeanization of super-productionsrdquo is the ldquointer-corporeal work in which anactor confronts hisher technique and professional identity with those of theothersrdquo (1996150) By locating the potential for agency at this microscopic levelof actor training Pavis reveals the limitations of the hourglass model as an effectivetemplate for a politicized theorization of the entire eld of interculturalism

Matrixing Interculturalism and Postcolonialism

One way of approaching the problems raised by Pavisrsquos model of interculturaltheatre is to consider its mechanisms through the lens of postcolonial theory

44 LoGilbert

Despite their shared concern with the phenomenon of cultural encounter the-ories of interculturalism and postcolonialism have thus far developed as more orless asymmetrical discourses the former having roots in theatre anthropology(viaVictor Turner) and semiotics the latter in literary and cultural studies as well asin psychoanalysis (via Frantz Fanon) and poststructuralism Of the two discoursespostcolonial theory has been the most consistently political taking as its primaryimperative the task of exposing and redressing unequal power relationships be-tween cultures whereas interculturalism has concerned itself more often with theaesthetics of cultural transfer What postcolonial theory offers to current debatesabout interculturalism is a framework for analyzing such thorny issues as agencyhybridity and authenticity issues that lie at the heart of intercultural praxis Withits insistent stress on historicity and speci city postcolonial theory offers ways ofrelocating the dynamics of intercultural theatre within identi able elds of so-ciopolitical and historical relations This contextualizing enables us to ask at anypoint in the production and reception processes of intercultural work questionsabout individual and collective power Whose economic andor political interestsare being served How is the working process represented to the target audienceand why Who is the target audience and how can differences be addressed withinthis constituency How does a speci c intercultural event impact on the widersociopolitical environment

The term ldquointerculturalrdquo suggests an exploration of the interstice betweencultures it draws our attention to the hyphenated third space separating andconnecting different peoples The act of crossing cultures (with reference to Dol-limorersquos notions of travesty hybridity and con ict) should ideally activate bothcentrifugal and centripetal forces in the process of mutual contamination andinteraction This is an aspect which Pavisrsquos unilinear model of interculturalismcannot take into account We would therefore like to propose an alternativemodel of intercultural exchange which for the purposes of this essay focuses onthe ldquobig picturerdquo and uses some of Pavisrsquos categories and terminologies Ourmodel is both a template for an intercultural practice that encourages more mu-tuality and an attempted representation of the mutuality that has already existedat some level even if it has been limited and nonre exive indeed suppressed inmuch theorizing of particular projects Our aim is to adapt what is essentially anappropriativeassimilationist model into a more collaborativenegotiated oneThe model we have in mind draws inspiration from a toy we used to play withas children in both Malaysia and Australia The toy consisted of a piece of elasticstrung through the middle of a plastic disc The elastic string is held at each endwith the disc supported in the center By rotating the hands in a circular motionthe disc is rotated outward Once the disc is rotating the elastic is alternatelytightened and released to continue the spinning of the disc The disc moves ineither direction along the string depending on whether the tension is generatedby the left or the right hand

In our model intercultural exchange is represented as a two-way ow Bothpartners are considered cultural sources while the target culture is positionedalong the continuum between them The location of the target culture is not xed its position remains uid and depending on where and how the exchangeprocess takes place shifts along the continuum For instance if the performancetakes place in the domain of source culture B then the position of the targetculture moves closer to source Brsquos end of the continuum This uidity not onlyforegrounds the dialogic nature of intercultural exchange but also takes into ac-count the possibility of power disparity in the partnership

Both source cultures bring to the theatrical project cultural apparatuses shapedby their respective sociocultural milieu ( lters 1 and 2) and both undergo a seriesof transformations and challenges in the process of exchange ( lters 3 through 9)

Cross-Cultural Theatre Praxis 45

SourceCulture B

1 cultural modeling2 artistic modeling3 work of adaptation4 preparatory work by

actors5 choice of theatrical

form6 artistic modeling of

target culture7 sociological amp

anthropologicalmodeling of targetculture

8 cultural modeling oftarget culture

9 given and anticipatedconsequences

SourceCulture A

cultural modeling

artistic modeling

work of adaptation

preparatory work byactors

choice of theatricalform

artistic modeling oftarget culture

sociological ampanthropologicalmodeling of targetculture

cultural modeling oftarget culture

given and anticipatedconsequences

SociopoliticalContext

InterculturalProcess for

TargetCulture

SociopoliticalContext

1234

5

6

7

8

9

in relation to each other and in anticipation of the target culture Even if thetarget culture is aligned with one of the source cultures both partners still undergoa similar process of ltration and hybridization however differently experiencedPositioned at the tension between source cultures intercultural exchange is char-acterized both by gain and by loss attraction and disavowal This dialogism isrepresented by the centrifugal and centripetal forces indicated in the diagramabove The proposed model locates all intercultural activity within an identi ablesociopolitical context This serves not only to foreground the inseparability ofartistic endeavors from sociopolitical relations but also to remind us that theoryand reading strategies are themselves deeply imbricated in speci c histories andpolitics

Our model of intercultural theatre rests on a notion of differentiated hybriditythat works in multiple and sometimes opposing ways19 Postcolonial theory haslong recognized that particular modes of hybridity are pinned to social politicaland economic factors which are conditioned in turn by historical experiencesof cultural encounters Extensive debate about the political purchase of hybridityhas prompted scholars such as Robert Young (1995) to distinguish between twokinds of hybridity organic and intentional Organic hybridity which has beenaligned with creolization and metissage is close to the fusion model oftenmanifestin intercultural theory It results in new cultural practices and identities withoutconscious contestation and serves a stabilizing function in settling cultural dif-ferences In this kind of hybridity agency inheres in cosmopolitanism the abilityto cross between cultures and to master their hybrid forms In contrast intentionalhybridity focuses on the process of negotiation between different practices andpoints of view It is characterized by division and separation and tends to be self-re exive with the negotiation process inevitably pinpointing areas of con ict In

Diagram 4 ProposedModel for Interculturalism

46 LoGilbert

this instance agency hinges on the degree to which cultural forms resist dilutionandor co-option According to Young the two categories of hybridity the in-tentional and the organic can be in operation at the same time resulting in anantithetical movement of coalescence and antagonism This offers a

dialectical model for cultural interaction an organic hybridity which willtend towards fusion in con ict with intentional hybridity which enables acontestatory activity a politicized setting of cultural differences againsteach other dialogically (199522)

Debates about hybridity in postcolonial theory tend to go hand in hand withdiscussions of authenticity Grif ths reminds us that ldquoauthenticityrdquo is a politicallycharged concept rather than a ldquonaturalrdquo or preexisting attribute While it may bepolitically exigent for non-Western peoples to deploy discourses of authenticityin order to bolster their cultural authority in the hands of Western critics andcommentators the sign of the ldquoauthenticrdquo can easily become a fetishized com-modity that grounds the legitimacy of other cultures ldquonot in their practice butin our desirerdquo (Grif ths 199482) That much intercultural theatre has been drivenby an intense interest in harnessing ldquotraditionalrdquo performance forms suggests weshould treat authenticity with caution recognizing that it registers and respondsto hierarchies of power In this context the ability to manipulate markers ofauthenticity becomes another measure of agency

Sites of Intervention

If postcolonialism is to denaturalize the universalist vision of the more egre-gious kinds of interculturalism it must bring into focus such aspects of theatre aslanguage space the body costume and spectatorship as ideologically laden signsystems as well as potential sites of hybridity By brie y outlining politicized waysof reading such sign systems20 we hope in the nal section of this essay to suggestpathways into intercultural projects that resist an unproblematized transfer of cul-ture

On the whole intercultural theatre has tended to favor visual spectacle overlinguistic innovation nevertheless there are signi cant language-based issues thatpertain to both its processes and products An elementary but immensely im-portant question is the matter of whose language is used for everyday commu-nication during the devising and rehearsing of speci c productions The fact thatEnglish has become the lingua franca in an increasingly globalized arts communitygives its native speakers considerable power to substantiate their views andorsecure their particular agendas In this respect we should remember that thewide-scale imposition of imperial languages on non-Western peoples has consti-tuted an insidious form of epistemic violence since the system of values inherentin a language becomes the ldquosystem upon which social economic and politicaldiscourses are groundedrdquo (Ashcroft Grif ths and Tif n 1995283) To ask whosevalues are heard and whose are silenced by the use of speci c languages thereforeseems essential to a more politicized form of interculturalism In addition wemight ask how linguistic translationsare conducted and whose interests they serveDoes the translator function as a negotiator or a type of ldquonative informantrdquo Whathappens to linguistic concepts that resist translation or adaptation In terms oftheatrical product language issues are equally complicated How do staged lan-guages animate one another Which carries the cultural authority What happensto the performative features of verbal enunciation particularly when stories frompredominantly oral cultures are presented How might we reread verbally silencedbodies in different ways

Cross-Cultural Theatre Praxis 47

Since intercultural theatre stages a meeting of cultures in both physical andimaginative realmsmdashthe actual place(s) where a project takes place as well as the ctional spaces represented by the mise-en-scenemdashits spatial semantics also de-mand analysis Space is neither neutral nor homogenous it inevitably colors thoserelationships within its limits especially on the stage where con gurations ofspace take on symbolic meaning We need to ask then how the physical spacemeeting place in ects intercultural collaborationWhose ground are we on Whatare the power relations inscribed in the architectural aspects of that place Howcan theatre provide a space for negotiatingor subverting the relationships its spatialcon gurations foster We also need to examine the ideological assumptions thatinhere in the imaginative space(s) created by the scenography What does the setfor instance convey about the cultures involved in the collaboration Whichactors and characters have access topriority over what spaces Where are theborders between cultures and how are they maintained traversed or brokendown What kind of cultural landscape is suggested by the stagescape

Postcolonial theorizing of geography cartography and spatial history showshow space is constructed in the nexus of power and culture rather than simplyexisting as an ontological category This kind of politicized approach brings intofocus the disjunctive gap between visible space and its ctional referent (what weinfer or imagine from our culturally in ected reading of proxemics) It is thenpossible to explore the rhizomatic potential of interculturalismmdashits ability to makemultiple connections and disconnections between cultural spacesmdashand to createrepresentations that are unbounded and open and potentially resistant to im-perialist forms of closure

The body in intercultural theatre is equally subject to multiple inscriptionsproducing an unstable signi er rather than a totalized identity It is a site of con-vergence for contesting discourses even though it may be marked with the dis-tinctive signs of a particular culture Postcolonial theory aims to foreground theways in which power is inscribed on and negotiated through the body Suchtheory continually questions what is spoken through the body how its languagesoperate and in the service of whose vested interests It maintains that the bodyis not only a site of knowledgepower but also a site of resistance which inElizabeth Groszrsquos words ldquoexerts a recalcitrance and always entails the possibilityof counterstrategic re-inscription [because] it is capable of being self-marked self-represented in alternative waysrdquo (199064) We need then to look at how resis-tance is expressed in relation to performative bodies how those bodies encodedifference and speci city and how they can prevent the universalizing impulseof transculturalism

As categories that are constructed through visible differences race and genderhave particular signi cance in this respect it is important to note however thatthese are complex and even unstable categories being historically conditionedrather than determined solely by biology One of the problems intercultural the-atre often faces is how to avoid essentialist constructions of race and gender whilestill accounting for the irreducible speci city of certain bodies and body behav-iors A common response is to elevate particular roles in source texts to the level ofarchetypes that can then be played by any skilled performer Peter Brookrsquos Ma-habharata has been accused of this approach (Dasgupta 1991 Bharucha 199368ndash87) This process of distillation strips the readable signs of culture from the sourcetext rather than provoke the audience to examine the tensions between partici-pating cultures There is no dialogic interaction instead a speci c body is sub-merged in the archetypal role according to the aesthetic principles of the projectPostcolonial theory warns against the dehistoricizing effects of such distillationprocesses It focuses on analyzing the gap between the material body and what itis supposed to represent This involves examining movement as well as bodily ap-

48 LoGilbert

pearance since as Pavis notes ldquoactors simultaneously reveal the culture of thecommunity where they have trained and where they live and the bodily tech-nique they have acquiredrdquo (19963) Rather than working from principles of ab-straction an intercultural practice informed by postcolonialism would play upcultural differences without attempting to deny the effects of the political econ-omy that underpins the project The hybrid counter-energies that result from theclash between the symbolic space and the culturally inscribed body can then pro-duce ldquoa radical heterogeneity discontinuity [and] the perpetual revolutionof formrdquo(Young 199525)

A politicized reading of costume is similarly necessary to the formulation of amore comprehensive theory about intercultural performance It seems that partof the attraction of interculturalism has to do with the fantasy of stepping intoldquonativerdquo costume in a process of cultural transvestism that does anything butsubvert power hierarchies As Gail Ching-Liang Low argues the fantasy of cross-cultural dressing identi es clothes as a ldquolsquobadge and advertisementrsquo of [the domi-nant culturersquos] ability to cross the class and cultural gaprdquo hence cultural transvestismoffers ldquothe promise of lsquotransgressiversquo pleasure without the penalties of actualchangerdquo (198992ndash93) If such transvestism could be used to draw attention tothe dif culties that inhere in crossing cultural gaps costume would then becomeanother possible site of resistant inscription rather than a conduit for the one-waycultural transfer that currently characterizes certain forms of interculturalismThisis where postcolonial theories about mimicry masquerade and self-consciousconstructions of subjectivity can come into play because they treat costume as amalleable and even ambiguous signi er rather than a transparent sign of particulargender racial social and national identities

Degrees of power and privilege are also embedded in the framing mechanismsthrough which particular elements of a performance are presented to its audi-ence(s) Typically intercultural theatre positions the performance traditions andoractual bodies of ldquootherrdquo cultures as focal points of the Western viewerrsquos specularconsumption and it is through this kind of untroubled and desiring gaze thatrei ed images of cultural difference are validated and circulated on the ldquointer-nationalrdquo arts market If intercultural theatre means to address the potential in-equities involved in Western appropriations of other cultural traditions then itsadherents must conceive of a theatre that somehow engages with its own estab-lished ldquolookingrdquo relations Interventionary frameworks and other metatheatricaldevicesmdashthese might range from direct audience address to self-conscious roleplaying to forum discussionmdashcan be used to problematize the implicitly im-perialist object-relations model of cross-cultural spectatorship Within the self-re exive theatre that we envision the hybridizing of cultural fragments wouldbe far from seamless cultural tensions would not be hidden nor difference nat-uralized

Conclusion

We have attempted to map the eld of cross-cultural theatre as a way of think-ing through its complexities and contradictions Despite our efforts to integratea diverse range of theories and practices into a ldquobig-picturerdquo account of the eldwe are not advocating a totalizing theory of cultural exchange Rather our dis-cussion is designed to enable a strategic way of rethinking the local and context-speci c through the global and vice versa This sort of matrixed model we wouldargue proffers a more nuanced method of actualizing and analyzing the range ofwork that is increasingly becoming a globalized praxis

Our all too brief survey of potential sites of intervention in the practice andinterpretation of intercultural theatre outlines some of the ways in which the

Cross-Cultural Theatre Praxis 49

mise-en-scene can be politicized and the notion of cultural hegemony relativizedIn an age where cultural boundaries are continually traversed and identities arebecoming increasingly hybridized an intercultural theatre practice informed bypostcolonial theory can potentially function as a site where this intersecting ofcultures is both re ected and critiqued Such a practice would align with (thoughnot necessarily replicate) Gomez-Penarsquos formulation of ldquoborder artrdquo in whichthe performerrsquos job is ldquoto trespass bridge interconnect reinterpret remap andrede nerdquo the limits of culture (199612) It is vital that intercultural theatrersquospotential to cross cultures is not co-opted and neutralized by the ldquoweakerrdquo formsof postmodernism which tend to result in an abstract depoliticized and ahis-torical notion of ldquodifferencerdquo or in effect a masked ldquoindifferencerdquo In this re-spect Homi Bhabharsquos clari cation of postcolonial hybridity as based on anagonistic relationship rather than a seamless fusion offers a workable model foran ethics as well as an aesthetics of cross-cultural engagement

Hybrid hyphenations emphasise the incommensurable elements [] as thebasis of cultural identi cations What is at issue is the performative natureof differential identities the regulation and negotiation of those spaces thatare continually contingently ldquoopening outrdquo remaking the boundariesexposing the limits of any claim to a singular or autonomous sign of dif-ferencemdashbe it class gender or race Such assignations of social differ-encesmdashwhere difference is neither One nor the Other but something elsebesides in-betweenmdash nd their agency in [] an interstitial future thatemerges in between the claims of the past and the needs of the present(1994219)

The kind of hyphenated hybridity that Bhabha outlines is already within theconceptual reach of interculturalism It is now time for a more sustained andsystematic engagement with the politics of its production

Notes

1 ldquoAgencyrdquo refers here to the potential to act or perform an action autonomously it registersdegrees of power and knowledge combined since to act autonomously is to understand theideological systems in which one is imbricated

2 For an extended discussion of multiculturalism in Canada Australia and the United Statessee Gunew (199351ndash65)

3 See Bennett (1996144ndash47) for examples of small ldquomrdquo multicultural theatre in which blind-cast productions of Shakespearersquos The Tempest unwittingly reproduced dominant culturalvalues

4 Guillermo Gomez-Pena critiques a similar model of intercultural encounter in his conceptof ldquocorporaterdquo or ldquotransnationalrdquo multiculturalism which he argues characterizes manybusiness and media conglomeratesrsquo current interest in difference Such difference performsthe ldquopassive roles of glossy images and exotic backgroundrdquo and real diversity is ldquo attenedand equalized by high production valuesrdquo (200112)

5 Examples of big ldquoMrdquo multicultural theatre include various projects done by El Teatro Cam-pesino (US) Talawa (Britain) Doppio Teatro and Urban Theatre Projects (Australia) andCahoots Theatre Projects (Canada) Of course there have been numerous projects (espe-cially in non-Western countries) that t within our de nition of multicultural theatre al-though the speci c practitioners involved may not identify their work in this way Examplesinclude projects by Five Arts Centre (Malaysia) William Kentridge and the HandspringPuppet Company (South Africa) Rustom Bharucha (India) and Gomez-Pena (USAMexico)

6 Our identi cation of ghetto and migrant theatres is in uenced by Richard Fotheringhamrsquoswork ([1987] 1992197ndash98)

7 For further explication of community theatre see Baz Kershaw (1992)

50 LoGilbert

8 For some time postcolonial theatre has been well theorized as a conceptual category albeita contested one however in-depth engagement with postcolonialism has been conspicu-ously absent from discussions of cross-cultural performance work in journals such as TDRSimilarly Patrice Pavisrsquos introduction to The Intercultural Performance Reader (1996) virtuallydismisses the eld of postcolonial theatre even though some of the bookrsquos contents clearly t within this grouping

9 Wole Soyinka Derek Walcott and Girish Karnad are the most prominent of a very largeand diverse group of dramatists who might be catagorized as ldquopostcolonialrdquo Well-knownindigenous theatre groups in countries permanently colonized by European powers includeKooemba Jdarra (Australia) Taki Rua Productions (New Zealand) Spiderwoman (USA) andNative Earth Performing Arts (Canada) See Gilbert and Tompkins (1996) for an extendedaccount of the eld

10 See the introduction to Christopher Balmersquos book Decolonizing the Stage Theatrical Syncre-tism and Post-Colonial Drama (1999) for an extended history of the conceptual category ofsyncretic theatre Balme has been the key theorist of this form of cross-cultural performancefor several years though he initially assessed its overarching function as cultural rapproche-ment rather than decolonization andor resistance

11 His notable theatre projects include Tooth of Crime (1973) Mother Courage (1975) The Pro-metheus Project (1983ndash85) and Three Sisters (1995ndash97)

12 The Tales from South Asia project as documented by Sharon Grady and Phillip Zarilli (1994)exhibits most of the features of the collaborative model The stated aims of the projectrsquosinitiators were to

develop a strategy of presentation and representation which engages an audienceandor students in ldquodifferencerdquo without stereotyping essentializing romanticizingthe ldquoother and keeping onersquos audience aware of contestation as a social realityrdquo(Grady and Zarilli 1994169)

13 Similar celebratory responses can be found in Williams (1992) and Wilshire and Wilshire(1989)

14 This position has been described elsewhere as ldquohappy hybridityrdquo (see Lo 2000)15 Schechnerrsquos 1989 article ldquoIntercultural Themesrdquo maps his thinking on the subject up to

the end of the 1980s see his 1996 interview with Pavis for a more recent account16 On a similar note Craig Latrell recently argued for a more complex reading of intercultural

exchange beyond the ldquovictim-victimizer narrativerdquo The non-Western cultures should notbe perceived as passive receivers of Western ideas but rather active manipulators of suchin uences (200045ndash46) His analysis of the speci city of theatrical agency is howeverweakened by the lack of attention to historical speci city and particularly the impact ofcolonialism in Singapore and Indonesia

17 For detailed explanation see Pavis (19924ndash20)18 Pavis adheres to the idea of turning the hourglass over for other perspectives but unlike

his earlier theorization which advocated the reversal as a way for the source culture tomonitor its own process of exchange the latest discussion appears to consolidate the primacyof the dominant culture

At the end of the process when spectators feel themselves buried alive under thesand of signs and symbols they have no other salvation than to give up and turn thehourglass upside down Then the perspective inverts and one must reverse andrelativize the sediments accumulated in the receiving culture and judge them fromthe point of view of alterity and relativity (199618)

19 For a fuller account of various modes of hybridity see Lo (2000152ndash55)20 See Gilbert (199813ndash25) for a more detailed discussion of the ways in which postcolonial

theory can be used to interpret ideological aspects of performance

References

Ambush Benny Sato1989 ldquoPluralism to the Bonerdquo American Theatre 615

Cross-Cultural Theatre Praxis 51

Ang Ien and John Stratton1994 ldquoMulticultural Imagined Communities Cultural Difference and National Iden-

tity in Australia and the USArdquo Continuum The Australian Journal of Media andCulture 8 2124ndash58

Ashcroft Bill Gareth Grif ths and Helen Tif n eds1995 The Post-Colonial Studies Reader London Routledge

Balme Christopher1999 Decolonizing the Stage Theatrical Syncretism and Post-Colonial Drama Oxford Ox-

ford University Press

Barba Eugenio1996 ldquoEurasian Theatrerdquo In The Intercultural Performance Reader edited by Patrice Pav-

ice 217ndash22 London Routledge

Bennett Susan1996 Performing Nostalgia Shifting Shakespeare and the ContemporaryPast LondonRout-

ledge

Bhabha Homi1994 The Location of Culture London Routledge

Bharucha Rustom1993 Theatre and the World Performance and the Politics of Culture London Routledge2000 The Politics of Cultural Practice Thinking through Theatre in an Age of Globalisation

London Athlone Press

Brandon James1990 ldquoContemporary Japanese Theatre Interculturalism and Intraculturalismrdquo In The

Dramatic Touch of Difference Theatre Own and Foreign edited by Erika Fischer-Lichte Michael Gissenwehrer and Josephine Riley 89ndash97 Tubingen Narr

Brown John Russell1998 ldquoTheatrical Pillage in Asia Redirecting the Intercultural Traf crdquo New Theatre

Quarterly 14 539ndash19

Carlson Marvin1990 ldquoPeter Brookrsquos The Mahabharata and Ariane Mnouchkinersquos LrsquoIndiade as Ex-

amples of Contemporary Cross-cultural Theatrerdquo In The Dramatic Touch of Dif-ference Theatre Own and Foreign edited by Erika Fischer-Lichte Michael Gissen-wehrer and Josephine Riley 49ndash56 Tubingen Narr

Carter David1986 ldquoThe Natives Are Getting Restless Nationalism Multiculturalism and Migrant

Writingrdquo Island Magazine 25263ndash8

Chin Daryl1991 ldquoInterculturalism Postmodernism Pluralismrdquo In Interculturalism and Performance

Writings from PAJ edited by Bonnie Marranca and Gautam Dasgupta 83ndash95New York PAJ Publications

Clifford James1994 ldquoDiasporasrdquo Cultural Anthropology 9 3 302ndash38

Dasgupta Gautam1991 ldquoThe Mahabharata Peter Brookrsquos Orientalismrdquo In Interculturalism and Perfor-

mance Writings from PAJ edited by Bonnie Marranca and Gautam Dasgupta 75ndash82 New York PAJ Publications

De Reuck Jenny2000 ldquolsquoThe mirror shattered into tiny piecesrsquo Reading Gender and Culture in the

Japan Foundation Asia Centrersquos LEARrdquo Intersections Online Asian Studies Journal3 6 httpwwwsshemurdocheduauintersectionsissue3jenny3html (12January 2001)

Cross-Cultural Theatre Praxis 43

Pavis is not unaware of this danger

If [the hourglass] is only a mill it will blend the source culture destroy itsevery speci city and drop into the lower bowl an inert and deformed sub-stance which will have lost its original modeling without being moldedinto that of the target culture If it is only a funnel it will indiscriminatelyabsorb the initial substance without reshaping it through the series of l-ters or leaving any trace of the original matter (19925)

Having said this however Pavis is unable to account for interculturalism as aprocess of political negotiation For example he argues that the mise-en-sceneas the central site of interculturalism functions as a ldquokind of reglage (lsquo ne-tuningrsquo)rdquo which mediates between different contexts cultural backgrounds andtraditions (19926) ldquoFine-tuningrdquo serves to smooth over differences in ways thatbecome intelligible for the target culture Similarly ldquoreception-adaptersrdquo ( lter8) ll the lacunae in the transfer of cultural content and dissipate the tensions ofincommensurability in order to create a ldquoreadablerdquo text for the target culture

The teleology of the hourglass model ultimately reduces interculturalexchangeto an alimentary process According to this logic the body belongs to the targetculture while the source culture becomes the food which must be digested andassimilated As Pavis notes only the grains that are ldquosuf ciently nerdquo will ldquo owthrough [the hourglass neck] without any troublerdquo (19924) His model cannotaccount for blockage collisions and retroaction as sites of either intervention orresistance In the nal analysis intercultural exchange according to the hourglassmodel is a reductive process which distills cultural difference into essences thatcan be readily absorbed by the target culture While Pavis does acknowledge thein uence of the social context ( lters 10B and 10C) the temporally bound meta-phor of the hourglass suggests that sociohistorical factors rather than in ectingthe entire intercultural process simply constitute the nal lter before the the-atrical product is consumed by the target culture In short the hourglass modelis premised on aesthetics rather than on politics

Pavis does not stray far from this model in his more recent theorization of the eld (1996) proffering instead a more careful schematization of different formsand modes of intercultural practice Although he does acknowledge the proble-matics of power inequities between partners in the exchange noting that ldquotherecan be no sense in which Asian perspectives are always reversible and symmetricalwith those of the Westmdashas a purely functionalist use of the hourglass turnedover and over ad in nitum might lead us naively to believerdquo (19962) there islittle sense that he has revised the translation principles underlying his model18

Pavis takes account of some of the recent ethical critiques of interculturalismandis particularly wary of it being absorbed into a postmodernist form of culturalrelativism Although he claims that ldquoexchange implies a theory and an ethics ofalterityrdquo (199611) he does not foreground the ethical dimension in any discern-ible way Signi cantly Pavis claims that the kind of intercultural practice thatholds the most potential for ldquoresistance against standardization against the Eu-ropeanization of super-productionsrdquo is the ldquointer-corporeal work in which anactor confronts hisher technique and professional identity with those of theothersrdquo (1996150) By locating the potential for agency at this microscopic levelof actor training Pavis reveals the limitations of the hourglass model as an effectivetemplate for a politicized theorization of the entire eld of interculturalism

Matrixing Interculturalism and Postcolonialism

One way of approaching the problems raised by Pavisrsquos model of interculturaltheatre is to consider its mechanisms through the lens of postcolonial theory

44 LoGilbert

Despite their shared concern with the phenomenon of cultural encounter the-ories of interculturalism and postcolonialism have thus far developed as more orless asymmetrical discourses the former having roots in theatre anthropology(viaVictor Turner) and semiotics the latter in literary and cultural studies as well asin psychoanalysis (via Frantz Fanon) and poststructuralism Of the two discoursespostcolonial theory has been the most consistently political taking as its primaryimperative the task of exposing and redressing unequal power relationships be-tween cultures whereas interculturalism has concerned itself more often with theaesthetics of cultural transfer What postcolonial theory offers to current debatesabout interculturalism is a framework for analyzing such thorny issues as agencyhybridity and authenticity issues that lie at the heart of intercultural praxis Withits insistent stress on historicity and speci city postcolonial theory offers ways ofrelocating the dynamics of intercultural theatre within identi able elds of so-ciopolitical and historical relations This contextualizing enables us to ask at anypoint in the production and reception processes of intercultural work questionsabout individual and collective power Whose economic andor political interestsare being served How is the working process represented to the target audienceand why Who is the target audience and how can differences be addressed withinthis constituency How does a speci c intercultural event impact on the widersociopolitical environment

The term ldquointerculturalrdquo suggests an exploration of the interstice betweencultures it draws our attention to the hyphenated third space separating andconnecting different peoples The act of crossing cultures (with reference to Dol-limorersquos notions of travesty hybridity and con ict) should ideally activate bothcentrifugal and centripetal forces in the process of mutual contamination andinteraction This is an aspect which Pavisrsquos unilinear model of interculturalismcannot take into account We would therefore like to propose an alternativemodel of intercultural exchange which for the purposes of this essay focuses onthe ldquobig picturerdquo and uses some of Pavisrsquos categories and terminologies Ourmodel is both a template for an intercultural practice that encourages more mu-tuality and an attempted representation of the mutuality that has already existedat some level even if it has been limited and nonre exive indeed suppressed inmuch theorizing of particular projects Our aim is to adapt what is essentially anappropriativeassimilationist model into a more collaborativenegotiated oneThe model we have in mind draws inspiration from a toy we used to play withas children in both Malaysia and Australia The toy consisted of a piece of elasticstrung through the middle of a plastic disc The elastic string is held at each endwith the disc supported in the center By rotating the hands in a circular motionthe disc is rotated outward Once the disc is rotating the elastic is alternatelytightened and released to continue the spinning of the disc The disc moves ineither direction along the string depending on whether the tension is generatedby the left or the right hand

In our model intercultural exchange is represented as a two-way ow Bothpartners are considered cultural sources while the target culture is positionedalong the continuum between them The location of the target culture is not xed its position remains uid and depending on where and how the exchangeprocess takes place shifts along the continuum For instance if the performancetakes place in the domain of source culture B then the position of the targetculture moves closer to source Brsquos end of the continuum This uidity not onlyforegrounds the dialogic nature of intercultural exchange but also takes into ac-count the possibility of power disparity in the partnership

Both source cultures bring to the theatrical project cultural apparatuses shapedby their respective sociocultural milieu ( lters 1 and 2) and both undergo a seriesof transformations and challenges in the process of exchange ( lters 3 through 9)

Cross-Cultural Theatre Praxis 45

SourceCulture B

1 cultural modeling2 artistic modeling3 work of adaptation4 preparatory work by

actors5 choice of theatrical

form6 artistic modeling of

target culture7 sociological amp

anthropologicalmodeling of targetculture

8 cultural modeling oftarget culture

9 given and anticipatedconsequences

SourceCulture A

cultural modeling

artistic modeling

work of adaptation

preparatory work byactors

choice of theatricalform

artistic modeling oftarget culture

sociological ampanthropologicalmodeling of targetculture

cultural modeling oftarget culture

given and anticipatedconsequences

SociopoliticalContext

InterculturalProcess for

TargetCulture

SociopoliticalContext

1234

5

6

7

8

9

in relation to each other and in anticipation of the target culture Even if thetarget culture is aligned with one of the source cultures both partners still undergoa similar process of ltration and hybridization however differently experiencedPositioned at the tension between source cultures intercultural exchange is char-acterized both by gain and by loss attraction and disavowal This dialogism isrepresented by the centrifugal and centripetal forces indicated in the diagramabove The proposed model locates all intercultural activity within an identi ablesociopolitical context This serves not only to foreground the inseparability ofartistic endeavors from sociopolitical relations but also to remind us that theoryand reading strategies are themselves deeply imbricated in speci c histories andpolitics

Our model of intercultural theatre rests on a notion of differentiated hybriditythat works in multiple and sometimes opposing ways19 Postcolonial theory haslong recognized that particular modes of hybridity are pinned to social politicaland economic factors which are conditioned in turn by historical experiencesof cultural encounters Extensive debate about the political purchase of hybridityhas prompted scholars such as Robert Young (1995) to distinguish between twokinds of hybridity organic and intentional Organic hybridity which has beenaligned with creolization and metissage is close to the fusion model oftenmanifestin intercultural theory It results in new cultural practices and identities withoutconscious contestation and serves a stabilizing function in settling cultural dif-ferences In this kind of hybridity agency inheres in cosmopolitanism the abilityto cross between cultures and to master their hybrid forms In contrast intentionalhybridity focuses on the process of negotiation between different practices andpoints of view It is characterized by division and separation and tends to be self-re exive with the negotiation process inevitably pinpointing areas of con ict In

Diagram 4 ProposedModel for Interculturalism

46 LoGilbert

this instance agency hinges on the degree to which cultural forms resist dilutionandor co-option According to Young the two categories of hybridity the in-tentional and the organic can be in operation at the same time resulting in anantithetical movement of coalescence and antagonism This offers a

dialectical model for cultural interaction an organic hybridity which willtend towards fusion in con ict with intentional hybridity which enables acontestatory activity a politicized setting of cultural differences againsteach other dialogically (199522)

Debates about hybridity in postcolonial theory tend to go hand in hand withdiscussions of authenticity Grif ths reminds us that ldquoauthenticityrdquo is a politicallycharged concept rather than a ldquonaturalrdquo or preexisting attribute While it may bepolitically exigent for non-Western peoples to deploy discourses of authenticityin order to bolster their cultural authority in the hands of Western critics andcommentators the sign of the ldquoauthenticrdquo can easily become a fetishized com-modity that grounds the legitimacy of other cultures ldquonot in their practice butin our desirerdquo (Grif ths 199482) That much intercultural theatre has been drivenby an intense interest in harnessing ldquotraditionalrdquo performance forms suggests weshould treat authenticity with caution recognizing that it registers and respondsto hierarchies of power In this context the ability to manipulate markers ofauthenticity becomes another measure of agency

Sites of Intervention

If postcolonialism is to denaturalize the universalist vision of the more egre-gious kinds of interculturalism it must bring into focus such aspects of theatre aslanguage space the body costume and spectatorship as ideologically laden signsystems as well as potential sites of hybridity By brie y outlining politicized waysof reading such sign systems20 we hope in the nal section of this essay to suggestpathways into intercultural projects that resist an unproblematized transfer of cul-ture

On the whole intercultural theatre has tended to favor visual spectacle overlinguistic innovation nevertheless there are signi cant language-based issues thatpertain to both its processes and products An elementary but immensely im-portant question is the matter of whose language is used for everyday commu-nication during the devising and rehearsing of speci c productions The fact thatEnglish has become the lingua franca in an increasingly globalized arts communitygives its native speakers considerable power to substantiate their views andorsecure their particular agendas In this respect we should remember that thewide-scale imposition of imperial languages on non-Western peoples has consti-tuted an insidious form of epistemic violence since the system of values inherentin a language becomes the ldquosystem upon which social economic and politicaldiscourses are groundedrdquo (Ashcroft Grif ths and Tif n 1995283) To ask whosevalues are heard and whose are silenced by the use of speci c languages thereforeseems essential to a more politicized form of interculturalism In addition wemight ask how linguistic translationsare conducted and whose interests they serveDoes the translator function as a negotiator or a type of ldquonative informantrdquo Whathappens to linguistic concepts that resist translation or adaptation In terms oftheatrical product language issues are equally complicated How do staged lan-guages animate one another Which carries the cultural authority What happensto the performative features of verbal enunciation particularly when stories frompredominantly oral cultures are presented How might we reread verbally silencedbodies in different ways

Cross-Cultural Theatre Praxis 47

Since intercultural theatre stages a meeting of cultures in both physical andimaginative realmsmdashthe actual place(s) where a project takes place as well as the ctional spaces represented by the mise-en-scenemdashits spatial semantics also de-mand analysis Space is neither neutral nor homogenous it inevitably colors thoserelationships within its limits especially on the stage where con gurations ofspace take on symbolic meaning We need to ask then how the physical spacemeeting place in ects intercultural collaborationWhose ground are we on Whatare the power relations inscribed in the architectural aspects of that place Howcan theatre provide a space for negotiatingor subverting the relationships its spatialcon gurations foster We also need to examine the ideological assumptions thatinhere in the imaginative space(s) created by the scenography What does the setfor instance convey about the cultures involved in the collaboration Whichactors and characters have access topriority over what spaces Where are theborders between cultures and how are they maintained traversed or brokendown What kind of cultural landscape is suggested by the stagescape

Postcolonial theorizing of geography cartography and spatial history showshow space is constructed in the nexus of power and culture rather than simplyexisting as an ontological category This kind of politicized approach brings intofocus the disjunctive gap between visible space and its ctional referent (what weinfer or imagine from our culturally in ected reading of proxemics) It is thenpossible to explore the rhizomatic potential of interculturalismmdashits ability to makemultiple connections and disconnections between cultural spacesmdashand to createrepresentations that are unbounded and open and potentially resistant to im-perialist forms of closure

The body in intercultural theatre is equally subject to multiple inscriptionsproducing an unstable signi er rather than a totalized identity It is a site of con-vergence for contesting discourses even though it may be marked with the dis-tinctive signs of a particular culture Postcolonial theory aims to foreground theways in which power is inscribed on and negotiated through the body Suchtheory continually questions what is spoken through the body how its languagesoperate and in the service of whose vested interests It maintains that the bodyis not only a site of knowledgepower but also a site of resistance which inElizabeth Groszrsquos words ldquoexerts a recalcitrance and always entails the possibilityof counterstrategic re-inscription [because] it is capable of being self-marked self-represented in alternative waysrdquo (199064) We need then to look at how resis-tance is expressed in relation to performative bodies how those bodies encodedifference and speci city and how they can prevent the universalizing impulseof transculturalism

As categories that are constructed through visible differences race and genderhave particular signi cance in this respect it is important to note however thatthese are complex and even unstable categories being historically conditionedrather than determined solely by biology One of the problems intercultural the-atre often faces is how to avoid essentialist constructions of race and gender whilestill accounting for the irreducible speci city of certain bodies and body behav-iors A common response is to elevate particular roles in source texts to the level ofarchetypes that can then be played by any skilled performer Peter Brookrsquos Ma-habharata has been accused of this approach (Dasgupta 1991 Bharucha 199368ndash87) This process of distillation strips the readable signs of culture from the sourcetext rather than provoke the audience to examine the tensions between partici-pating cultures There is no dialogic interaction instead a speci c body is sub-merged in the archetypal role according to the aesthetic principles of the projectPostcolonial theory warns against the dehistoricizing effects of such distillationprocesses It focuses on analyzing the gap between the material body and what itis supposed to represent This involves examining movement as well as bodily ap-

48 LoGilbert

pearance since as Pavis notes ldquoactors simultaneously reveal the culture of thecommunity where they have trained and where they live and the bodily tech-nique they have acquiredrdquo (19963) Rather than working from principles of ab-straction an intercultural practice informed by postcolonialism would play upcultural differences without attempting to deny the effects of the political econ-omy that underpins the project The hybrid counter-energies that result from theclash between the symbolic space and the culturally inscribed body can then pro-duce ldquoa radical heterogeneity discontinuity [and] the perpetual revolutionof formrdquo(Young 199525)

A politicized reading of costume is similarly necessary to the formulation of amore comprehensive theory about intercultural performance It seems that partof the attraction of interculturalism has to do with the fantasy of stepping intoldquonativerdquo costume in a process of cultural transvestism that does anything butsubvert power hierarchies As Gail Ching-Liang Low argues the fantasy of cross-cultural dressing identi es clothes as a ldquolsquobadge and advertisementrsquo of [the domi-nant culturersquos] ability to cross the class and cultural gaprdquo hence cultural transvestismoffers ldquothe promise of lsquotransgressiversquo pleasure without the penalties of actualchangerdquo (198992ndash93) If such transvestism could be used to draw attention tothe dif culties that inhere in crossing cultural gaps costume would then becomeanother possible site of resistant inscription rather than a conduit for the one-waycultural transfer that currently characterizes certain forms of interculturalismThisis where postcolonial theories about mimicry masquerade and self-consciousconstructions of subjectivity can come into play because they treat costume as amalleable and even ambiguous signi er rather than a transparent sign of particulargender racial social and national identities

Degrees of power and privilege are also embedded in the framing mechanismsthrough which particular elements of a performance are presented to its audi-ence(s) Typically intercultural theatre positions the performance traditions andoractual bodies of ldquootherrdquo cultures as focal points of the Western viewerrsquos specularconsumption and it is through this kind of untroubled and desiring gaze thatrei ed images of cultural difference are validated and circulated on the ldquointer-nationalrdquo arts market If intercultural theatre means to address the potential in-equities involved in Western appropriations of other cultural traditions then itsadherents must conceive of a theatre that somehow engages with its own estab-lished ldquolookingrdquo relations Interventionary frameworks and other metatheatricaldevicesmdashthese might range from direct audience address to self-conscious roleplaying to forum discussionmdashcan be used to problematize the implicitly im-perialist object-relations model of cross-cultural spectatorship Within the self-re exive theatre that we envision the hybridizing of cultural fragments wouldbe far from seamless cultural tensions would not be hidden nor difference nat-uralized

Conclusion

We have attempted to map the eld of cross-cultural theatre as a way of think-ing through its complexities and contradictions Despite our efforts to integratea diverse range of theories and practices into a ldquobig-picturerdquo account of the eldwe are not advocating a totalizing theory of cultural exchange Rather our dis-cussion is designed to enable a strategic way of rethinking the local and context-speci c through the global and vice versa This sort of matrixed model we wouldargue proffers a more nuanced method of actualizing and analyzing the range ofwork that is increasingly becoming a globalized praxis

Our all too brief survey of potential sites of intervention in the practice andinterpretation of intercultural theatre outlines some of the ways in which the

Cross-Cultural Theatre Praxis 49

mise-en-scene can be politicized and the notion of cultural hegemony relativizedIn an age where cultural boundaries are continually traversed and identities arebecoming increasingly hybridized an intercultural theatre practice informed bypostcolonial theory can potentially function as a site where this intersecting ofcultures is both re ected and critiqued Such a practice would align with (thoughnot necessarily replicate) Gomez-Penarsquos formulation of ldquoborder artrdquo in whichthe performerrsquos job is ldquoto trespass bridge interconnect reinterpret remap andrede nerdquo the limits of culture (199612) It is vital that intercultural theatrersquospotential to cross cultures is not co-opted and neutralized by the ldquoweakerrdquo formsof postmodernism which tend to result in an abstract depoliticized and ahis-torical notion of ldquodifferencerdquo or in effect a masked ldquoindifferencerdquo In this re-spect Homi Bhabharsquos clari cation of postcolonial hybridity as based on anagonistic relationship rather than a seamless fusion offers a workable model foran ethics as well as an aesthetics of cross-cultural engagement

Hybrid hyphenations emphasise the incommensurable elements [] as thebasis of cultural identi cations What is at issue is the performative natureof differential identities the regulation and negotiation of those spaces thatare continually contingently ldquoopening outrdquo remaking the boundariesexposing the limits of any claim to a singular or autonomous sign of dif-ferencemdashbe it class gender or race Such assignations of social differ-encesmdashwhere difference is neither One nor the Other but something elsebesides in-betweenmdash nd their agency in [] an interstitial future thatemerges in between the claims of the past and the needs of the present(1994219)

The kind of hyphenated hybridity that Bhabha outlines is already within theconceptual reach of interculturalism It is now time for a more sustained andsystematic engagement with the politics of its production

Notes

1 ldquoAgencyrdquo refers here to the potential to act or perform an action autonomously it registersdegrees of power and knowledge combined since to act autonomously is to understand theideological systems in which one is imbricated

2 For an extended discussion of multiculturalism in Canada Australia and the United Statessee Gunew (199351ndash65)

3 See Bennett (1996144ndash47) for examples of small ldquomrdquo multicultural theatre in which blind-cast productions of Shakespearersquos The Tempest unwittingly reproduced dominant culturalvalues

4 Guillermo Gomez-Pena critiques a similar model of intercultural encounter in his conceptof ldquocorporaterdquo or ldquotransnationalrdquo multiculturalism which he argues characterizes manybusiness and media conglomeratesrsquo current interest in difference Such difference performsthe ldquopassive roles of glossy images and exotic backgroundrdquo and real diversity is ldquo attenedand equalized by high production valuesrdquo (200112)

5 Examples of big ldquoMrdquo multicultural theatre include various projects done by El Teatro Cam-pesino (US) Talawa (Britain) Doppio Teatro and Urban Theatre Projects (Australia) andCahoots Theatre Projects (Canada) Of course there have been numerous projects (espe-cially in non-Western countries) that t within our de nition of multicultural theatre al-though the speci c practitioners involved may not identify their work in this way Examplesinclude projects by Five Arts Centre (Malaysia) William Kentridge and the HandspringPuppet Company (South Africa) Rustom Bharucha (India) and Gomez-Pena (USAMexico)

6 Our identi cation of ghetto and migrant theatres is in uenced by Richard Fotheringhamrsquoswork ([1987] 1992197ndash98)

7 For further explication of community theatre see Baz Kershaw (1992)

50 LoGilbert

8 For some time postcolonial theatre has been well theorized as a conceptual category albeita contested one however in-depth engagement with postcolonialism has been conspicu-ously absent from discussions of cross-cultural performance work in journals such as TDRSimilarly Patrice Pavisrsquos introduction to The Intercultural Performance Reader (1996) virtuallydismisses the eld of postcolonial theatre even though some of the bookrsquos contents clearly t within this grouping

9 Wole Soyinka Derek Walcott and Girish Karnad are the most prominent of a very largeand diverse group of dramatists who might be catagorized as ldquopostcolonialrdquo Well-knownindigenous theatre groups in countries permanently colonized by European powers includeKooemba Jdarra (Australia) Taki Rua Productions (New Zealand) Spiderwoman (USA) andNative Earth Performing Arts (Canada) See Gilbert and Tompkins (1996) for an extendedaccount of the eld

10 See the introduction to Christopher Balmersquos book Decolonizing the Stage Theatrical Syncre-tism and Post-Colonial Drama (1999) for an extended history of the conceptual category ofsyncretic theatre Balme has been the key theorist of this form of cross-cultural performancefor several years though he initially assessed its overarching function as cultural rapproche-ment rather than decolonization andor resistance

11 His notable theatre projects include Tooth of Crime (1973) Mother Courage (1975) The Pro-metheus Project (1983ndash85) and Three Sisters (1995ndash97)

12 The Tales from South Asia project as documented by Sharon Grady and Phillip Zarilli (1994)exhibits most of the features of the collaborative model The stated aims of the projectrsquosinitiators were to

develop a strategy of presentation and representation which engages an audienceandor students in ldquodifferencerdquo without stereotyping essentializing romanticizingthe ldquoother and keeping onersquos audience aware of contestation as a social realityrdquo(Grady and Zarilli 1994169)

13 Similar celebratory responses can be found in Williams (1992) and Wilshire and Wilshire(1989)

14 This position has been described elsewhere as ldquohappy hybridityrdquo (see Lo 2000)15 Schechnerrsquos 1989 article ldquoIntercultural Themesrdquo maps his thinking on the subject up to

the end of the 1980s see his 1996 interview with Pavis for a more recent account16 On a similar note Craig Latrell recently argued for a more complex reading of intercultural

exchange beyond the ldquovictim-victimizer narrativerdquo The non-Western cultures should notbe perceived as passive receivers of Western ideas but rather active manipulators of suchin uences (200045ndash46) His analysis of the speci city of theatrical agency is howeverweakened by the lack of attention to historical speci city and particularly the impact ofcolonialism in Singapore and Indonesia

17 For detailed explanation see Pavis (19924ndash20)18 Pavis adheres to the idea of turning the hourglass over for other perspectives but unlike

his earlier theorization which advocated the reversal as a way for the source culture tomonitor its own process of exchange the latest discussion appears to consolidate the primacyof the dominant culture

At the end of the process when spectators feel themselves buried alive under thesand of signs and symbols they have no other salvation than to give up and turn thehourglass upside down Then the perspective inverts and one must reverse andrelativize the sediments accumulated in the receiving culture and judge them fromthe point of view of alterity and relativity (199618)

19 For a fuller account of various modes of hybridity see Lo (2000152ndash55)20 See Gilbert (199813ndash25) for a more detailed discussion of the ways in which postcolonial

theory can be used to interpret ideological aspects of performance

References

Ambush Benny Sato1989 ldquoPluralism to the Bonerdquo American Theatre 615

Cross-Cultural Theatre Praxis 51

Ang Ien and John Stratton1994 ldquoMulticultural Imagined Communities Cultural Difference and National Iden-

tity in Australia and the USArdquo Continuum The Australian Journal of Media andCulture 8 2124ndash58

Ashcroft Bill Gareth Grif ths and Helen Tif n eds1995 The Post-Colonial Studies Reader London Routledge

Balme Christopher1999 Decolonizing the Stage Theatrical Syncretism and Post-Colonial Drama Oxford Ox-

ford University Press

Barba Eugenio1996 ldquoEurasian Theatrerdquo In The Intercultural Performance Reader edited by Patrice Pav-

ice 217ndash22 London Routledge

Bennett Susan1996 Performing Nostalgia Shifting Shakespeare and the ContemporaryPast LondonRout-

ledge

Bhabha Homi1994 The Location of Culture London Routledge

Bharucha Rustom1993 Theatre and the World Performance and the Politics of Culture London Routledge2000 The Politics of Cultural Practice Thinking through Theatre in an Age of Globalisation

London Athlone Press

Brandon James1990 ldquoContemporary Japanese Theatre Interculturalism and Intraculturalismrdquo In The

Dramatic Touch of Difference Theatre Own and Foreign edited by Erika Fischer-Lichte Michael Gissenwehrer and Josephine Riley 89ndash97 Tubingen Narr

Brown John Russell1998 ldquoTheatrical Pillage in Asia Redirecting the Intercultural Traf crdquo New Theatre

Quarterly 14 539ndash19

Carlson Marvin1990 ldquoPeter Brookrsquos The Mahabharata and Ariane Mnouchkinersquos LrsquoIndiade as Ex-

amples of Contemporary Cross-cultural Theatrerdquo In The Dramatic Touch of Dif-ference Theatre Own and Foreign edited by Erika Fischer-Lichte Michael Gissen-wehrer and Josephine Riley 49ndash56 Tubingen Narr

Carter David1986 ldquoThe Natives Are Getting Restless Nationalism Multiculturalism and Migrant

Writingrdquo Island Magazine 25263ndash8

Chin Daryl1991 ldquoInterculturalism Postmodernism Pluralismrdquo In Interculturalism and Performance

Writings from PAJ edited by Bonnie Marranca and Gautam Dasgupta 83ndash95New York PAJ Publications

Clifford James1994 ldquoDiasporasrdquo Cultural Anthropology 9 3 302ndash38

Dasgupta Gautam1991 ldquoThe Mahabharata Peter Brookrsquos Orientalismrdquo In Interculturalism and Perfor-

mance Writings from PAJ edited by Bonnie Marranca and Gautam Dasgupta 75ndash82 New York PAJ Publications

De Reuck Jenny2000 ldquolsquoThe mirror shattered into tiny piecesrsquo Reading Gender and Culture in the

Japan Foundation Asia Centrersquos LEARrdquo Intersections Online Asian Studies Journal3 6 httpwwwsshemurdocheduauintersectionsissue3jenny3html (12January 2001)

44 LoGilbert

Despite their shared concern with the phenomenon of cultural encounter the-ories of interculturalism and postcolonialism have thus far developed as more orless asymmetrical discourses the former having roots in theatre anthropology(viaVictor Turner) and semiotics the latter in literary and cultural studies as well asin psychoanalysis (via Frantz Fanon) and poststructuralism Of the two discoursespostcolonial theory has been the most consistently political taking as its primaryimperative the task of exposing and redressing unequal power relationships be-tween cultures whereas interculturalism has concerned itself more often with theaesthetics of cultural transfer What postcolonial theory offers to current debatesabout interculturalism is a framework for analyzing such thorny issues as agencyhybridity and authenticity issues that lie at the heart of intercultural praxis Withits insistent stress on historicity and speci city postcolonial theory offers ways ofrelocating the dynamics of intercultural theatre within identi able elds of so-ciopolitical and historical relations This contextualizing enables us to ask at anypoint in the production and reception processes of intercultural work questionsabout individual and collective power Whose economic andor political interestsare being served How is the working process represented to the target audienceand why Who is the target audience and how can differences be addressed withinthis constituency How does a speci c intercultural event impact on the widersociopolitical environment

The term ldquointerculturalrdquo suggests an exploration of the interstice betweencultures it draws our attention to the hyphenated third space separating andconnecting different peoples The act of crossing cultures (with reference to Dol-limorersquos notions of travesty hybridity and con ict) should ideally activate bothcentrifugal and centripetal forces in the process of mutual contamination andinteraction This is an aspect which Pavisrsquos unilinear model of interculturalismcannot take into account We would therefore like to propose an alternativemodel of intercultural exchange which for the purposes of this essay focuses onthe ldquobig picturerdquo and uses some of Pavisrsquos categories and terminologies Ourmodel is both a template for an intercultural practice that encourages more mu-tuality and an attempted representation of the mutuality that has already existedat some level even if it has been limited and nonre exive indeed suppressed inmuch theorizing of particular projects Our aim is to adapt what is essentially anappropriativeassimilationist model into a more collaborativenegotiated oneThe model we have in mind draws inspiration from a toy we used to play withas children in both Malaysia and Australia The toy consisted of a piece of elasticstrung through the middle of a plastic disc The elastic string is held at each endwith the disc supported in the center By rotating the hands in a circular motionthe disc is rotated outward Once the disc is rotating the elastic is alternatelytightened and released to continue the spinning of the disc The disc moves ineither direction along the string depending on whether the tension is generatedby the left or the right hand

In our model intercultural exchange is represented as a two-way ow Bothpartners are considered cultural sources while the target culture is positionedalong the continuum between them The location of the target culture is not xed its position remains uid and depending on where and how the exchangeprocess takes place shifts along the continuum For instance if the performancetakes place in the domain of source culture B then the position of the targetculture moves closer to source Brsquos end of the continuum This uidity not onlyforegrounds the dialogic nature of intercultural exchange but also takes into ac-count the possibility of power disparity in the partnership

Both source cultures bring to the theatrical project cultural apparatuses shapedby their respective sociocultural milieu ( lters 1 and 2) and both undergo a seriesof transformations and challenges in the process of exchange ( lters 3 through 9)

Cross-Cultural Theatre Praxis 45

SourceCulture B

1 cultural modeling2 artistic modeling3 work of adaptation4 preparatory work by

actors5 choice of theatrical

form6 artistic modeling of

target culture7 sociological amp

anthropologicalmodeling of targetculture

8 cultural modeling oftarget culture

9 given and anticipatedconsequences

SourceCulture A

cultural modeling

artistic modeling

work of adaptation

preparatory work byactors

choice of theatricalform

artistic modeling oftarget culture

sociological ampanthropologicalmodeling of targetculture

cultural modeling oftarget culture

given and anticipatedconsequences

SociopoliticalContext

InterculturalProcess for

TargetCulture

SociopoliticalContext

1234

5

6

7

8

9

in relation to each other and in anticipation of the target culture Even if thetarget culture is aligned with one of the source cultures both partners still undergoa similar process of ltration and hybridization however differently experiencedPositioned at the tension between source cultures intercultural exchange is char-acterized both by gain and by loss attraction and disavowal This dialogism isrepresented by the centrifugal and centripetal forces indicated in the diagramabove The proposed model locates all intercultural activity within an identi ablesociopolitical context This serves not only to foreground the inseparability ofartistic endeavors from sociopolitical relations but also to remind us that theoryand reading strategies are themselves deeply imbricated in speci c histories andpolitics

Our model of intercultural theatre rests on a notion of differentiated hybriditythat works in multiple and sometimes opposing ways19 Postcolonial theory haslong recognized that particular modes of hybridity are pinned to social politicaland economic factors which are conditioned in turn by historical experiencesof cultural encounters Extensive debate about the political purchase of hybridityhas prompted scholars such as Robert Young (1995) to distinguish between twokinds of hybridity organic and intentional Organic hybridity which has beenaligned with creolization and metissage is close to the fusion model oftenmanifestin intercultural theory It results in new cultural practices and identities withoutconscious contestation and serves a stabilizing function in settling cultural dif-ferences In this kind of hybridity agency inheres in cosmopolitanism the abilityto cross between cultures and to master their hybrid forms In contrast intentionalhybridity focuses on the process of negotiation between different practices andpoints of view It is characterized by division and separation and tends to be self-re exive with the negotiation process inevitably pinpointing areas of con ict In

Diagram 4 ProposedModel for Interculturalism

46 LoGilbert

this instance agency hinges on the degree to which cultural forms resist dilutionandor co-option According to Young the two categories of hybridity the in-tentional and the organic can be in operation at the same time resulting in anantithetical movement of coalescence and antagonism This offers a

dialectical model for cultural interaction an organic hybridity which willtend towards fusion in con ict with intentional hybridity which enables acontestatory activity a politicized setting of cultural differences againsteach other dialogically (199522)

Debates about hybridity in postcolonial theory tend to go hand in hand withdiscussions of authenticity Grif ths reminds us that ldquoauthenticityrdquo is a politicallycharged concept rather than a ldquonaturalrdquo or preexisting attribute While it may bepolitically exigent for non-Western peoples to deploy discourses of authenticityin order to bolster their cultural authority in the hands of Western critics andcommentators the sign of the ldquoauthenticrdquo can easily become a fetishized com-modity that grounds the legitimacy of other cultures ldquonot in their practice butin our desirerdquo (Grif ths 199482) That much intercultural theatre has been drivenby an intense interest in harnessing ldquotraditionalrdquo performance forms suggests weshould treat authenticity with caution recognizing that it registers and respondsto hierarchies of power In this context the ability to manipulate markers ofauthenticity becomes another measure of agency

Sites of Intervention

If postcolonialism is to denaturalize the universalist vision of the more egre-gious kinds of interculturalism it must bring into focus such aspects of theatre aslanguage space the body costume and spectatorship as ideologically laden signsystems as well as potential sites of hybridity By brie y outlining politicized waysof reading such sign systems20 we hope in the nal section of this essay to suggestpathways into intercultural projects that resist an unproblematized transfer of cul-ture

On the whole intercultural theatre has tended to favor visual spectacle overlinguistic innovation nevertheless there are signi cant language-based issues thatpertain to both its processes and products An elementary but immensely im-portant question is the matter of whose language is used for everyday commu-nication during the devising and rehearsing of speci c productions The fact thatEnglish has become the lingua franca in an increasingly globalized arts communitygives its native speakers considerable power to substantiate their views andorsecure their particular agendas In this respect we should remember that thewide-scale imposition of imperial languages on non-Western peoples has consti-tuted an insidious form of epistemic violence since the system of values inherentin a language becomes the ldquosystem upon which social economic and politicaldiscourses are groundedrdquo (Ashcroft Grif ths and Tif n 1995283) To ask whosevalues are heard and whose are silenced by the use of speci c languages thereforeseems essential to a more politicized form of interculturalism In addition wemight ask how linguistic translationsare conducted and whose interests they serveDoes the translator function as a negotiator or a type of ldquonative informantrdquo Whathappens to linguistic concepts that resist translation or adaptation In terms oftheatrical product language issues are equally complicated How do staged lan-guages animate one another Which carries the cultural authority What happensto the performative features of verbal enunciation particularly when stories frompredominantly oral cultures are presented How might we reread verbally silencedbodies in different ways

Cross-Cultural Theatre Praxis 47

Since intercultural theatre stages a meeting of cultures in both physical andimaginative realmsmdashthe actual place(s) where a project takes place as well as the ctional spaces represented by the mise-en-scenemdashits spatial semantics also de-mand analysis Space is neither neutral nor homogenous it inevitably colors thoserelationships within its limits especially on the stage where con gurations ofspace take on symbolic meaning We need to ask then how the physical spacemeeting place in ects intercultural collaborationWhose ground are we on Whatare the power relations inscribed in the architectural aspects of that place Howcan theatre provide a space for negotiatingor subverting the relationships its spatialcon gurations foster We also need to examine the ideological assumptions thatinhere in the imaginative space(s) created by the scenography What does the setfor instance convey about the cultures involved in the collaboration Whichactors and characters have access topriority over what spaces Where are theborders between cultures and how are they maintained traversed or brokendown What kind of cultural landscape is suggested by the stagescape

Postcolonial theorizing of geography cartography and spatial history showshow space is constructed in the nexus of power and culture rather than simplyexisting as an ontological category This kind of politicized approach brings intofocus the disjunctive gap between visible space and its ctional referent (what weinfer or imagine from our culturally in ected reading of proxemics) It is thenpossible to explore the rhizomatic potential of interculturalismmdashits ability to makemultiple connections and disconnections between cultural spacesmdashand to createrepresentations that are unbounded and open and potentially resistant to im-perialist forms of closure

The body in intercultural theatre is equally subject to multiple inscriptionsproducing an unstable signi er rather than a totalized identity It is a site of con-vergence for contesting discourses even though it may be marked with the dis-tinctive signs of a particular culture Postcolonial theory aims to foreground theways in which power is inscribed on and negotiated through the body Suchtheory continually questions what is spoken through the body how its languagesoperate and in the service of whose vested interests It maintains that the bodyis not only a site of knowledgepower but also a site of resistance which inElizabeth Groszrsquos words ldquoexerts a recalcitrance and always entails the possibilityof counterstrategic re-inscription [because] it is capable of being self-marked self-represented in alternative waysrdquo (199064) We need then to look at how resis-tance is expressed in relation to performative bodies how those bodies encodedifference and speci city and how they can prevent the universalizing impulseof transculturalism

As categories that are constructed through visible differences race and genderhave particular signi cance in this respect it is important to note however thatthese are complex and even unstable categories being historically conditionedrather than determined solely by biology One of the problems intercultural the-atre often faces is how to avoid essentialist constructions of race and gender whilestill accounting for the irreducible speci city of certain bodies and body behav-iors A common response is to elevate particular roles in source texts to the level ofarchetypes that can then be played by any skilled performer Peter Brookrsquos Ma-habharata has been accused of this approach (Dasgupta 1991 Bharucha 199368ndash87) This process of distillation strips the readable signs of culture from the sourcetext rather than provoke the audience to examine the tensions between partici-pating cultures There is no dialogic interaction instead a speci c body is sub-merged in the archetypal role according to the aesthetic principles of the projectPostcolonial theory warns against the dehistoricizing effects of such distillationprocesses It focuses on analyzing the gap between the material body and what itis supposed to represent This involves examining movement as well as bodily ap-

48 LoGilbert

pearance since as Pavis notes ldquoactors simultaneously reveal the culture of thecommunity where they have trained and where they live and the bodily tech-nique they have acquiredrdquo (19963) Rather than working from principles of ab-straction an intercultural practice informed by postcolonialism would play upcultural differences without attempting to deny the effects of the political econ-omy that underpins the project The hybrid counter-energies that result from theclash between the symbolic space and the culturally inscribed body can then pro-duce ldquoa radical heterogeneity discontinuity [and] the perpetual revolutionof formrdquo(Young 199525)

A politicized reading of costume is similarly necessary to the formulation of amore comprehensive theory about intercultural performance It seems that partof the attraction of interculturalism has to do with the fantasy of stepping intoldquonativerdquo costume in a process of cultural transvestism that does anything butsubvert power hierarchies As Gail Ching-Liang Low argues the fantasy of cross-cultural dressing identi es clothes as a ldquolsquobadge and advertisementrsquo of [the domi-nant culturersquos] ability to cross the class and cultural gaprdquo hence cultural transvestismoffers ldquothe promise of lsquotransgressiversquo pleasure without the penalties of actualchangerdquo (198992ndash93) If such transvestism could be used to draw attention tothe dif culties that inhere in crossing cultural gaps costume would then becomeanother possible site of resistant inscription rather than a conduit for the one-waycultural transfer that currently characterizes certain forms of interculturalismThisis where postcolonial theories about mimicry masquerade and self-consciousconstructions of subjectivity can come into play because they treat costume as amalleable and even ambiguous signi er rather than a transparent sign of particulargender racial social and national identities

Degrees of power and privilege are also embedded in the framing mechanismsthrough which particular elements of a performance are presented to its audi-ence(s) Typically intercultural theatre positions the performance traditions andoractual bodies of ldquootherrdquo cultures as focal points of the Western viewerrsquos specularconsumption and it is through this kind of untroubled and desiring gaze thatrei ed images of cultural difference are validated and circulated on the ldquointer-nationalrdquo arts market If intercultural theatre means to address the potential in-equities involved in Western appropriations of other cultural traditions then itsadherents must conceive of a theatre that somehow engages with its own estab-lished ldquolookingrdquo relations Interventionary frameworks and other metatheatricaldevicesmdashthese might range from direct audience address to self-conscious roleplaying to forum discussionmdashcan be used to problematize the implicitly im-perialist object-relations model of cross-cultural spectatorship Within the self-re exive theatre that we envision the hybridizing of cultural fragments wouldbe far from seamless cultural tensions would not be hidden nor difference nat-uralized

Conclusion

We have attempted to map the eld of cross-cultural theatre as a way of think-ing through its complexities and contradictions Despite our efforts to integratea diverse range of theories and practices into a ldquobig-picturerdquo account of the eldwe are not advocating a totalizing theory of cultural exchange Rather our dis-cussion is designed to enable a strategic way of rethinking the local and context-speci c through the global and vice versa This sort of matrixed model we wouldargue proffers a more nuanced method of actualizing and analyzing the range ofwork that is increasingly becoming a globalized praxis

Our all too brief survey of potential sites of intervention in the practice andinterpretation of intercultural theatre outlines some of the ways in which the

Cross-Cultural Theatre Praxis 49

mise-en-scene can be politicized and the notion of cultural hegemony relativizedIn an age where cultural boundaries are continually traversed and identities arebecoming increasingly hybridized an intercultural theatre practice informed bypostcolonial theory can potentially function as a site where this intersecting ofcultures is both re ected and critiqued Such a practice would align with (thoughnot necessarily replicate) Gomez-Penarsquos formulation of ldquoborder artrdquo in whichthe performerrsquos job is ldquoto trespass bridge interconnect reinterpret remap andrede nerdquo the limits of culture (199612) It is vital that intercultural theatrersquospotential to cross cultures is not co-opted and neutralized by the ldquoweakerrdquo formsof postmodernism which tend to result in an abstract depoliticized and ahis-torical notion of ldquodifferencerdquo or in effect a masked ldquoindifferencerdquo In this re-spect Homi Bhabharsquos clari cation of postcolonial hybridity as based on anagonistic relationship rather than a seamless fusion offers a workable model foran ethics as well as an aesthetics of cross-cultural engagement

Hybrid hyphenations emphasise the incommensurable elements [] as thebasis of cultural identi cations What is at issue is the performative natureof differential identities the regulation and negotiation of those spaces thatare continually contingently ldquoopening outrdquo remaking the boundariesexposing the limits of any claim to a singular or autonomous sign of dif-ferencemdashbe it class gender or race Such assignations of social differ-encesmdashwhere difference is neither One nor the Other but something elsebesides in-betweenmdash nd their agency in [] an interstitial future thatemerges in between the claims of the past and the needs of the present(1994219)

The kind of hyphenated hybridity that Bhabha outlines is already within theconceptual reach of interculturalism It is now time for a more sustained andsystematic engagement with the politics of its production

Notes

1 ldquoAgencyrdquo refers here to the potential to act or perform an action autonomously it registersdegrees of power and knowledge combined since to act autonomously is to understand theideological systems in which one is imbricated

2 For an extended discussion of multiculturalism in Canada Australia and the United Statessee Gunew (199351ndash65)

3 See Bennett (1996144ndash47) for examples of small ldquomrdquo multicultural theatre in which blind-cast productions of Shakespearersquos The Tempest unwittingly reproduced dominant culturalvalues

4 Guillermo Gomez-Pena critiques a similar model of intercultural encounter in his conceptof ldquocorporaterdquo or ldquotransnationalrdquo multiculturalism which he argues characterizes manybusiness and media conglomeratesrsquo current interest in difference Such difference performsthe ldquopassive roles of glossy images and exotic backgroundrdquo and real diversity is ldquo attenedand equalized by high production valuesrdquo (200112)

5 Examples of big ldquoMrdquo multicultural theatre include various projects done by El Teatro Cam-pesino (US) Talawa (Britain) Doppio Teatro and Urban Theatre Projects (Australia) andCahoots Theatre Projects (Canada) Of course there have been numerous projects (espe-cially in non-Western countries) that t within our de nition of multicultural theatre al-though the speci c practitioners involved may not identify their work in this way Examplesinclude projects by Five Arts Centre (Malaysia) William Kentridge and the HandspringPuppet Company (South Africa) Rustom Bharucha (India) and Gomez-Pena (USAMexico)

6 Our identi cation of ghetto and migrant theatres is in uenced by Richard Fotheringhamrsquoswork ([1987] 1992197ndash98)

7 For further explication of community theatre see Baz Kershaw (1992)

50 LoGilbert

8 For some time postcolonial theatre has been well theorized as a conceptual category albeita contested one however in-depth engagement with postcolonialism has been conspicu-ously absent from discussions of cross-cultural performance work in journals such as TDRSimilarly Patrice Pavisrsquos introduction to The Intercultural Performance Reader (1996) virtuallydismisses the eld of postcolonial theatre even though some of the bookrsquos contents clearly t within this grouping

9 Wole Soyinka Derek Walcott and Girish Karnad are the most prominent of a very largeand diverse group of dramatists who might be catagorized as ldquopostcolonialrdquo Well-knownindigenous theatre groups in countries permanently colonized by European powers includeKooemba Jdarra (Australia) Taki Rua Productions (New Zealand) Spiderwoman (USA) andNative Earth Performing Arts (Canada) See Gilbert and Tompkins (1996) for an extendedaccount of the eld

10 See the introduction to Christopher Balmersquos book Decolonizing the Stage Theatrical Syncre-tism and Post-Colonial Drama (1999) for an extended history of the conceptual category ofsyncretic theatre Balme has been the key theorist of this form of cross-cultural performancefor several years though he initially assessed its overarching function as cultural rapproche-ment rather than decolonization andor resistance

11 His notable theatre projects include Tooth of Crime (1973) Mother Courage (1975) The Pro-metheus Project (1983ndash85) and Three Sisters (1995ndash97)

12 The Tales from South Asia project as documented by Sharon Grady and Phillip Zarilli (1994)exhibits most of the features of the collaborative model The stated aims of the projectrsquosinitiators were to

develop a strategy of presentation and representation which engages an audienceandor students in ldquodifferencerdquo without stereotyping essentializing romanticizingthe ldquoother and keeping onersquos audience aware of contestation as a social realityrdquo(Grady and Zarilli 1994169)

13 Similar celebratory responses can be found in Williams (1992) and Wilshire and Wilshire(1989)

14 This position has been described elsewhere as ldquohappy hybridityrdquo (see Lo 2000)15 Schechnerrsquos 1989 article ldquoIntercultural Themesrdquo maps his thinking on the subject up to

the end of the 1980s see his 1996 interview with Pavis for a more recent account16 On a similar note Craig Latrell recently argued for a more complex reading of intercultural

exchange beyond the ldquovictim-victimizer narrativerdquo The non-Western cultures should notbe perceived as passive receivers of Western ideas but rather active manipulators of suchin uences (200045ndash46) His analysis of the speci city of theatrical agency is howeverweakened by the lack of attention to historical speci city and particularly the impact ofcolonialism in Singapore and Indonesia

17 For detailed explanation see Pavis (19924ndash20)18 Pavis adheres to the idea of turning the hourglass over for other perspectives but unlike

his earlier theorization which advocated the reversal as a way for the source culture tomonitor its own process of exchange the latest discussion appears to consolidate the primacyof the dominant culture

At the end of the process when spectators feel themselves buried alive under thesand of signs and symbols they have no other salvation than to give up and turn thehourglass upside down Then the perspective inverts and one must reverse andrelativize the sediments accumulated in the receiving culture and judge them fromthe point of view of alterity and relativity (199618)

19 For a fuller account of various modes of hybridity see Lo (2000152ndash55)20 See Gilbert (199813ndash25) for a more detailed discussion of the ways in which postcolonial

theory can be used to interpret ideological aspects of performance

References

Ambush Benny Sato1989 ldquoPluralism to the Bonerdquo American Theatre 615

Cross-Cultural Theatre Praxis 51

Ang Ien and John Stratton1994 ldquoMulticultural Imagined Communities Cultural Difference and National Iden-

tity in Australia and the USArdquo Continuum The Australian Journal of Media andCulture 8 2124ndash58

Ashcroft Bill Gareth Grif ths and Helen Tif n eds1995 The Post-Colonial Studies Reader London Routledge

Balme Christopher1999 Decolonizing the Stage Theatrical Syncretism and Post-Colonial Drama Oxford Ox-

ford University Press

Barba Eugenio1996 ldquoEurasian Theatrerdquo In The Intercultural Performance Reader edited by Patrice Pav-

ice 217ndash22 London Routledge

Bennett Susan1996 Performing Nostalgia Shifting Shakespeare and the ContemporaryPast LondonRout-

ledge

Bhabha Homi1994 The Location of Culture London Routledge

Bharucha Rustom1993 Theatre and the World Performance and the Politics of Culture London Routledge2000 The Politics of Cultural Practice Thinking through Theatre in an Age of Globalisation

London Athlone Press

Brandon James1990 ldquoContemporary Japanese Theatre Interculturalism and Intraculturalismrdquo In The

Dramatic Touch of Difference Theatre Own and Foreign edited by Erika Fischer-Lichte Michael Gissenwehrer and Josephine Riley 89ndash97 Tubingen Narr

Brown John Russell1998 ldquoTheatrical Pillage in Asia Redirecting the Intercultural Traf crdquo New Theatre

Quarterly 14 539ndash19

Carlson Marvin1990 ldquoPeter Brookrsquos The Mahabharata and Ariane Mnouchkinersquos LrsquoIndiade as Ex-

amples of Contemporary Cross-cultural Theatrerdquo In The Dramatic Touch of Dif-ference Theatre Own and Foreign edited by Erika Fischer-Lichte Michael Gissen-wehrer and Josephine Riley 49ndash56 Tubingen Narr

Carter David1986 ldquoThe Natives Are Getting Restless Nationalism Multiculturalism and Migrant

Writingrdquo Island Magazine 25263ndash8

Chin Daryl1991 ldquoInterculturalism Postmodernism Pluralismrdquo In Interculturalism and Performance

Writings from PAJ edited by Bonnie Marranca and Gautam Dasgupta 83ndash95New York PAJ Publications

Clifford James1994 ldquoDiasporasrdquo Cultural Anthropology 9 3 302ndash38

Dasgupta Gautam1991 ldquoThe Mahabharata Peter Brookrsquos Orientalismrdquo In Interculturalism and Perfor-

mance Writings from PAJ edited by Bonnie Marranca and Gautam Dasgupta 75ndash82 New York PAJ Publications

De Reuck Jenny2000 ldquolsquoThe mirror shattered into tiny piecesrsquo Reading Gender and Culture in the

Japan Foundation Asia Centrersquos LEARrdquo Intersections Online Asian Studies Journal3 6 httpwwwsshemurdocheduauintersectionsissue3jenny3html (12January 2001)

Cross-Cultural Theatre Praxis 45

SourceCulture B

1 cultural modeling2 artistic modeling3 work of adaptation4 preparatory work by

actors5 choice of theatrical

form6 artistic modeling of

target culture7 sociological amp

anthropologicalmodeling of targetculture

8 cultural modeling oftarget culture

9 given and anticipatedconsequences

SourceCulture A

cultural modeling

artistic modeling

work of adaptation

preparatory work byactors

choice of theatricalform

artistic modeling oftarget culture

sociological ampanthropologicalmodeling of targetculture

cultural modeling oftarget culture

given and anticipatedconsequences

SociopoliticalContext

InterculturalProcess for

TargetCulture

SociopoliticalContext

1234

5

6

7

8

9

in relation to each other and in anticipation of the target culture Even if thetarget culture is aligned with one of the source cultures both partners still undergoa similar process of ltration and hybridization however differently experiencedPositioned at the tension between source cultures intercultural exchange is char-acterized both by gain and by loss attraction and disavowal This dialogism isrepresented by the centrifugal and centripetal forces indicated in the diagramabove The proposed model locates all intercultural activity within an identi ablesociopolitical context This serves not only to foreground the inseparability ofartistic endeavors from sociopolitical relations but also to remind us that theoryand reading strategies are themselves deeply imbricated in speci c histories andpolitics

Our model of intercultural theatre rests on a notion of differentiated hybriditythat works in multiple and sometimes opposing ways19 Postcolonial theory haslong recognized that particular modes of hybridity are pinned to social politicaland economic factors which are conditioned in turn by historical experiencesof cultural encounters Extensive debate about the political purchase of hybridityhas prompted scholars such as Robert Young (1995) to distinguish between twokinds of hybridity organic and intentional Organic hybridity which has beenaligned with creolization and metissage is close to the fusion model oftenmanifestin intercultural theory It results in new cultural practices and identities withoutconscious contestation and serves a stabilizing function in settling cultural dif-ferences In this kind of hybridity agency inheres in cosmopolitanism the abilityto cross between cultures and to master their hybrid forms In contrast intentionalhybridity focuses on the process of negotiation between different practices andpoints of view It is characterized by division and separation and tends to be self-re exive with the negotiation process inevitably pinpointing areas of con ict In

Diagram 4 ProposedModel for Interculturalism

46 LoGilbert

this instance agency hinges on the degree to which cultural forms resist dilutionandor co-option According to Young the two categories of hybridity the in-tentional and the organic can be in operation at the same time resulting in anantithetical movement of coalescence and antagonism This offers a

dialectical model for cultural interaction an organic hybridity which willtend towards fusion in con ict with intentional hybridity which enables acontestatory activity a politicized setting of cultural differences againsteach other dialogically (199522)

Debates about hybridity in postcolonial theory tend to go hand in hand withdiscussions of authenticity Grif ths reminds us that ldquoauthenticityrdquo is a politicallycharged concept rather than a ldquonaturalrdquo or preexisting attribute While it may bepolitically exigent for non-Western peoples to deploy discourses of authenticityin order to bolster their cultural authority in the hands of Western critics andcommentators the sign of the ldquoauthenticrdquo can easily become a fetishized com-modity that grounds the legitimacy of other cultures ldquonot in their practice butin our desirerdquo (Grif ths 199482) That much intercultural theatre has been drivenby an intense interest in harnessing ldquotraditionalrdquo performance forms suggests weshould treat authenticity with caution recognizing that it registers and respondsto hierarchies of power In this context the ability to manipulate markers ofauthenticity becomes another measure of agency

Sites of Intervention

If postcolonialism is to denaturalize the universalist vision of the more egre-gious kinds of interculturalism it must bring into focus such aspects of theatre aslanguage space the body costume and spectatorship as ideologically laden signsystems as well as potential sites of hybridity By brie y outlining politicized waysof reading such sign systems20 we hope in the nal section of this essay to suggestpathways into intercultural projects that resist an unproblematized transfer of cul-ture

On the whole intercultural theatre has tended to favor visual spectacle overlinguistic innovation nevertheless there are signi cant language-based issues thatpertain to both its processes and products An elementary but immensely im-portant question is the matter of whose language is used for everyday commu-nication during the devising and rehearsing of speci c productions The fact thatEnglish has become the lingua franca in an increasingly globalized arts communitygives its native speakers considerable power to substantiate their views andorsecure their particular agendas In this respect we should remember that thewide-scale imposition of imperial languages on non-Western peoples has consti-tuted an insidious form of epistemic violence since the system of values inherentin a language becomes the ldquosystem upon which social economic and politicaldiscourses are groundedrdquo (Ashcroft Grif ths and Tif n 1995283) To ask whosevalues are heard and whose are silenced by the use of speci c languages thereforeseems essential to a more politicized form of interculturalism In addition wemight ask how linguistic translationsare conducted and whose interests they serveDoes the translator function as a negotiator or a type of ldquonative informantrdquo Whathappens to linguistic concepts that resist translation or adaptation In terms oftheatrical product language issues are equally complicated How do staged lan-guages animate one another Which carries the cultural authority What happensto the performative features of verbal enunciation particularly when stories frompredominantly oral cultures are presented How might we reread verbally silencedbodies in different ways

Cross-Cultural Theatre Praxis 47

Since intercultural theatre stages a meeting of cultures in both physical andimaginative realmsmdashthe actual place(s) where a project takes place as well as the ctional spaces represented by the mise-en-scenemdashits spatial semantics also de-mand analysis Space is neither neutral nor homogenous it inevitably colors thoserelationships within its limits especially on the stage where con gurations ofspace take on symbolic meaning We need to ask then how the physical spacemeeting place in ects intercultural collaborationWhose ground are we on Whatare the power relations inscribed in the architectural aspects of that place Howcan theatre provide a space for negotiatingor subverting the relationships its spatialcon gurations foster We also need to examine the ideological assumptions thatinhere in the imaginative space(s) created by the scenography What does the setfor instance convey about the cultures involved in the collaboration Whichactors and characters have access topriority over what spaces Where are theborders between cultures and how are they maintained traversed or brokendown What kind of cultural landscape is suggested by the stagescape

Postcolonial theorizing of geography cartography and spatial history showshow space is constructed in the nexus of power and culture rather than simplyexisting as an ontological category This kind of politicized approach brings intofocus the disjunctive gap between visible space and its ctional referent (what weinfer or imagine from our culturally in ected reading of proxemics) It is thenpossible to explore the rhizomatic potential of interculturalismmdashits ability to makemultiple connections and disconnections between cultural spacesmdashand to createrepresentations that are unbounded and open and potentially resistant to im-perialist forms of closure

The body in intercultural theatre is equally subject to multiple inscriptionsproducing an unstable signi er rather than a totalized identity It is a site of con-vergence for contesting discourses even though it may be marked with the dis-tinctive signs of a particular culture Postcolonial theory aims to foreground theways in which power is inscribed on and negotiated through the body Suchtheory continually questions what is spoken through the body how its languagesoperate and in the service of whose vested interests It maintains that the bodyis not only a site of knowledgepower but also a site of resistance which inElizabeth Groszrsquos words ldquoexerts a recalcitrance and always entails the possibilityof counterstrategic re-inscription [because] it is capable of being self-marked self-represented in alternative waysrdquo (199064) We need then to look at how resis-tance is expressed in relation to performative bodies how those bodies encodedifference and speci city and how they can prevent the universalizing impulseof transculturalism

As categories that are constructed through visible differences race and genderhave particular signi cance in this respect it is important to note however thatthese are complex and even unstable categories being historically conditionedrather than determined solely by biology One of the problems intercultural the-atre often faces is how to avoid essentialist constructions of race and gender whilestill accounting for the irreducible speci city of certain bodies and body behav-iors A common response is to elevate particular roles in source texts to the level ofarchetypes that can then be played by any skilled performer Peter Brookrsquos Ma-habharata has been accused of this approach (Dasgupta 1991 Bharucha 199368ndash87) This process of distillation strips the readable signs of culture from the sourcetext rather than provoke the audience to examine the tensions between partici-pating cultures There is no dialogic interaction instead a speci c body is sub-merged in the archetypal role according to the aesthetic principles of the projectPostcolonial theory warns against the dehistoricizing effects of such distillationprocesses It focuses on analyzing the gap between the material body and what itis supposed to represent This involves examining movement as well as bodily ap-

48 LoGilbert

pearance since as Pavis notes ldquoactors simultaneously reveal the culture of thecommunity where they have trained and where they live and the bodily tech-nique they have acquiredrdquo (19963) Rather than working from principles of ab-straction an intercultural practice informed by postcolonialism would play upcultural differences without attempting to deny the effects of the political econ-omy that underpins the project The hybrid counter-energies that result from theclash between the symbolic space and the culturally inscribed body can then pro-duce ldquoa radical heterogeneity discontinuity [and] the perpetual revolutionof formrdquo(Young 199525)

A politicized reading of costume is similarly necessary to the formulation of amore comprehensive theory about intercultural performance It seems that partof the attraction of interculturalism has to do with the fantasy of stepping intoldquonativerdquo costume in a process of cultural transvestism that does anything butsubvert power hierarchies As Gail Ching-Liang Low argues the fantasy of cross-cultural dressing identi es clothes as a ldquolsquobadge and advertisementrsquo of [the domi-nant culturersquos] ability to cross the class and cultural gaprdquo hence cultural transvestismoffers ldquothe promise of lsquotransgressiversquo pleasure without the penalties of actualchangerdquo (198992ndash93) If such transvestism could be used to draw attention tothe dif culties that inhere in crossing cultural gaps costume would then becomeanother possible site of resistant inscription rather than a conduit for the one-waycultural transfer that currently characterizes certain forms of interculturalismThisis where postcolonial theories about mimicry masquerade and self-consciousconstructions of subjectivity can come into play because they treat costume as amalleable and even ambiguous signi er rather than a transparent sign of particulargender racial social and national identities

Degrees of power and privilege are also embedded in the framing mechanismsthrough which particular elements of a performance are presented to its audi-ence(s) Typically intercultural theatre positions the performance traditions andoractual bodies of ldquootherrdquo cultures as focal points of the Western viewerrsquos specularconsumption and it is through this kind of untroubled and desiring gaze thatrei ed images of cultural difference are validated and circulated on the ldquointer-nationalrdquo arts market If intercultural theatre means to address the potential in-equities involved in Western appropriations of other cultural traditions then itsadherents must conceive of a theatre that somehow engages with its own estab-lished ldquolookingrdquo relations Interventionary frameworks and other metatheatricaldevicesmdashthese might range from direct audience address to self-conscious roleplaying to forum discussionmdashcan be used to problematize the implicitly im-perialist object-relations model of cross-cultural spectatorship Within the self-re exive theatre that we envision the hybridizing of cultural fragments wouldbe far from seamless cultural tensions would not be hidden nor difference nat-uralized

Conclusion

We have attempted to map the eld of cross-cultural theatre as a way of think-ing through its complexities and contradictions Despite our efforts to integratea diverse range of theories and practices into a ldquobig-picturerdquo account of the eldwe are not advocating a totalizing theory of cultural exchange Rather our dis-cussion is designed to enable a strategic way of rethinking the local and context-speci c through the global and vice versa This sort of matrixed model we wouldargue proffers a more nuanced method of actualizing and analyzing the range ofwork that is increasingly becoming a globalized praxis

Our all too brief survey of potential sites of intervention in the practice andinterpretation of intercultural theatre outlines some of the ways in which the

Cross-Cultural Theatre Praxis 49

mise-en-scene can be politicized and the notion of cultural hegemony relativizedIn an age where cultural boundaries are continually traversed and identities arebecoming increasingly hybridized an intercultural theatre practice informed bypostcolonial theory can potentially function as a site where this intersecting ofcultures is both re ected and critiqued Such a practice would align with (thoughnot necessarily replicate) Gomez-Penarsquos formulation of ldquoborder artrdquo in whichthe performerrsquos job is ldquoto trespass bridge interconnect reinterpret remap andrede nerdquo the limits of culture (199612) It is vital that intercultural theatrersquospotential to cross cultures is not co-opted and neutralized by the ldquoweakerrdquo formsof postmodernism which tend to result in an abstract depoliticized and ahis-torical notion of ldquodifferencerdquo or in effect a masked ldquoindifferencerdquo In this re-spect Homi Bhabharsquos clari cation of postcolonial hybridity as based on anagonistic relationship rather than a seamless fusion offers a workable model foran ethics as well as an aesthetics of cross-cultural engagement

Hybrid hyphenations emphasise the incommensurable elements [] as thebasis of cultural identi cations What is at issue is the performative natureof differential identities the regulation and negotiation of those spaces thatare continually contingently ldquoopening outrdquo remaking the boundariesexposing the limits of any claim to a singular or autonomous sign of dif-ferencemdashbe it class gender or race Such assignations of social differ-encesmdashwhere difference is neither One nor the Other but something elsebesides in-betweenmdash nd their agency in [] an interstitial future thatemerges in between the claims of the past and the needs of the present(1994219)

The kind of hyphenated hybridity that Bhabha outlines is already within theconceptual reach of interculturalism It is now time for a more sustained andsystematic engagement with the politics of its production

Notes

1 ldquoAgencyrdquo refers here to the potential to act or perform an action autonomously it registersdegrees of power and knowledge combined since to act autonomously is to understand theideological systems in which one is imbricated

2 For an extended discussion of multiculturalism in Canada Australia and the United Statessee Gunew (199351ndash65)

3 See Bennett (1996144ndash47) for examples of small ldquomrdquo multicultural theatre in which blind-cast productions of Shakespearersquos The Tempest unwittingly reproduced dominant culturalvalues

4 Guillermo Gomez-Pena critiques a similar model of intercultural encounter in his conceptof ldquocorporaterdquo or ldquotransnationalrdquo multiculturalism which he argues characterizes manybusiness and media conglomeratesrsquo current interest in difference Such difference performsthe ldquopassive roles of glossy images and exotic backgroundrdquo and real diversity is ldquo attenedand equalized by high production valuesrdquo (200112)

5 Examples of big ldquoMrdquo multicultural theatre include various projects done by El Teatro Cam-pesino (US) Talawa (Britain) Doppio Teatro and Urban Theatre Projects (Australia) andCahoots Theatre Projects (Canada) Of course there have been numerous projects (espe-cially in non-Western countries) that t within our de nition of multicultural theatre al-though the speci c practitioners involved may not identify their work in this way Examplesinclude projects by Five Arts Centre (Malaysia) William Kentridge and the HandspringPuppet Company (South Africa) Rustom Bharucha (India) and Gomez-Pena (USAMexico)

6 Our identi cation of ghetto and migrant theatres is in uenced by Richard Fotheringhamrsquoswork ([1987] 1992197ndash98)

7 For further explication of community theatre see Baz Kershaw (1992)

50 LoGilbert

8 For some time postcolonial theatre has been well theorized as a conceptual category albeita contested one however in-depth engagement with postcolonialism has been conspicu-ously absent from discussions of cross-cultural performance work in journals such as TDRSimilarly Patrice Pavisrsquos introduction to The Intercultural Performance Reader (1996) virtuallydismisses the eld of postcolonial theatre even though some of the bookrsquos contents clearly t within this grouping

9 Wole Soyinka Derek Walcott and Girish Karnad are the most prominent of a very largeand diverse group of dramatists who might be catagorized as ldquopostcolonialrdquo Well-knownindigenous theatre groups in countries permanently colonized by European powers includeKooemba Jdarra (Australia) Taki Rua Productions (New Zealand) Spiderwoman (USA) andNative Earth Performing Arts (Canada) See Gilbert and Tompkins (1996) for an extendedaccount of the eld

10 See the introduction to Christopher Balmersquos book Decolonizing the Stage Theatrical Syncre-tism and Post-Colonial Drama (1999) for an extended history of the conceptual category ofsyncretic theatre Balme has been the key theorist of this form of cross-cultural performancefor several years though he initially assessed its overarching function as cultural rapproche-ment rather than decolonization andor resistance

11 His notable theatre projects include Tooth of Crime (1973) Mother Courage (1975) The Pro-metheus Project (1983ndash85) and Three Sisters (1995ndash97)

12 The Tales from South Asia project as documented by Sharon Grady and Phillip Zarilli (1994)exhibits most of the features of the collaborative model The stated aims of the projectrsquosinitiators were to

develop a strategy of presentation and representation which engages an audienceandor students in ldquodifferencerdquo without stereotyping essentializing romanticizingthe ldquoother and keeping onersquos audience aware of contestation as a social realityrdquo(Grady and Zarilli 1994169)

13 Similar celebratory responses can be found in Williams (1992) and Wilshire and Wilshire(1989)

14 This position has been described elsewhere as ldquohappy hybridityrdquo (see Lo 2000)15 Schechnerrsquos 1989 article ldquoIntercultural Themesrdquo maps his thinking on the subject up to

the end of the 1980s see his 1996 interview with Pavis for a more recent account16 On a similar note Craig Latrell recently argued for a more complex reading of intercultural

exchange beyond the ldquovictim-victimizer narrativerdquo The non-Western cultures should notbe perceived as passive receivers of Western ideas but rather active manipulators of suchin uences (200045ndash46) His analysis of the speci city of theatrical agency is howeverweakened by the lack of attention to historical speci city and particularly the impact ofcolonialism in Singapore and Indonesia

17 For detailed explanation see Pavis (19924ndash20)18 Pavis adheres to the idea of turning the hourglass over for other perspectives but unlike

his earlier theorization which advocated the reversal as a way for the source culture tomonitor its own process of exchange the latest discussion appears to consolidate the primacyof the dominant culture

At the end of the process when spectators feel themselves buried alive under thesand of signs and symbols they have no other salvation than to give up and turn thehourglass upside down Then the perspective inverts and one must reverse andrelativize the sediments accumulated in the receiving culture and judge them fromthe point of view of alterity and relativity (199618)

19 For a fuller account of various modes of hybridity see Lo (2000152ndash55)20 See Gilbert (199813ndash25) for a more detailed discussion of the ways in which postcolonial

theory can be used to interpret ideological aspects of performance

References

Ambush Benny Sato1989 ldquoPluralism to the Bonerdquo American Theatre 615

Cross-Cultural Theatre Praxis 51

Ang Ien and John Stratton1994 ldquoMulticultural Imagined Communities Cultural Difference and National Iden-

tity in Australia and the USArdquo Continuum The Australian Journal of Media andCulture 8 2124ndash58

Ashcroft Bill Gareth Grif ths and Helen Tif n eds1995 The Post-Colonial Studies Reader London Routledge

Balme Christopher1999 Decolonizing the Stage Theatrical Syncretism and Post-Colonial Drama Oxford Ox-

ford University Press

Barba Eugenio1996 ldquoEurasian Theatrerdquo In The Intercultural Performance Reader edited by Patrice Pav-

ice 217ndash22 London Routledge

Bennett Susan1996 Performing Nostalgia Shifting Shakespeare and the ContemporaryPast LondonRout-

ledge

Bhabha Homi1994 The Location of Culture London Routledge

Bharucha Rustom1993 Theatre and the World Performance and the Politics of Culture London Routledge2000 The Politics of Cultural Practice Thinking through Theatre in an Age of Globalisation

London Athlone Press

Brandon James1990 ldquoContemporary Japanese Theatre Interculturalism and Intraculturalismrdquo In The

Dramatic Touch of Difference Theatre Own and Foreign edited by Erika Fischer-Lichte Michael Gissenwehrer and Josephine Riley 89ndash97 Tubingen Narr

Brown John Russell1998 ldquoTheatrical Pillage in Asia Redirecting the Intercultural Traf crdquo New Theatre

Quarterly 14 539ndash19

Carlson Marvin1990 ldquoPeter Brookrsquos The Mahabharata and Ariane Mnouchkinersquos LrsquoIndiade as Ex-

amples of Contemporary Cross-cultural Theatrerdquo In The Dramatic Touch of Dif-ference Theatre Own and Foreign edited by Erika Fischer-Lichte Michael Gissen-wehrer and Josephine Riley 49ndash56 Tubingen Narr

Carter David1986 ldquoThe Natives Are Getting Restless Nationalism Multiculturalism and Migrant

Writingrdquo Island Magazine 25263ndash8

Chin Daryl1991 ldquoInterculturalism Postmodernism Pluralismrdquo In Interculturalism and Performance

Writings from PAJ edited by Bonnie Marranca and Gautam Dasgupta 83ndash95New York PAJ Publications

Clifford James1994 ldquoDiasporasrdquo Cultural Anthropology 9 3 302ndash38

Dasgupta Gautam1991 ldquoThe Mahabharata Peter Brookrsquos Orientalismrdquo In Interculturalism and Perfor-

mance Writings from PAJ edited by Bonnie Marranca and Gautam Dasgupta 75ndash82 New York PAJ Publications

De Reuck Jenny2000 ldquolsquoThe mirror shattered into tiny piecesrsquo Reading Gender and Culture in the

Japan Foundation Asia Centrersquos LEARrdquo Intersections Online Asian Studies Journal3 6 httpwwwsshemurdocheduauintersectionsissue3jenny3html (12January 2001)

46 LoGilbert

this instance agency hinges on the degree to which cultural forms resist dilutionandor co-option According to Young the two categories of hybridity the in-tentional and the organic can be in operation at the same time resulting in anantithetical movement of coalescence and antagonism This offers a

dialectical model for cultural interaction an organic hybridity which willtend towards fusion in con ict with intentional hybridity which enables acontestatory activity a politicized setting of cultural differences againsteach other dialogically (199522)

Debates about hybridity in postcolonial theory tend to go hand in hand withdiscussions of authenticity Grif ths reminds us that ldquoauthenticityrdquo is a politicallycharged concept rather than a ldquonaturalrdquo or preexisting attribute While it may bepolitically exigent for non-Western peoples to deploy discourses of authenticityin order to bolster their cultural authority in the hands of Western critics andcommentators the sign of the ldquoauthenticrdquo can easily become a fetishized com-modity that grounds the legitimacy of other cultures ldquonot in their practice butin our desirerdquo (Grif ths 199482) That much intercultural theatre has been drivenby an intense interest in harnessing ldquotraditionalrdquo performance forms suggests weshould treat authenticity with caution recognizing that it registers and respondsto hierarchies of power In this context the ability to manipulate markers ofauthenticity becomes another measure of agency

Sites of Intervention

If postcolonialism is to denaturalize the universalist vision of the more egre-gious kinds of interculturalism it must bring into focus such aspects of theatre aslanguage space the body costume and spectatorship as ideologically laden signsystems as well as potential sites of hybridity By brie y outlining politicized waysof reading such sign systems20 we hope in the nal section of this essay to suggestpathways into intercultural projects that resist an unproblematized transfer of cul-ture

On the whole intercultural theatre has tended to favor visual spectacle overlinguistic innovation nevertheless there are signi cant language-based issues thatpertain to both its processes and products An elementary but immensely im-portant question is the matter of whose language is used for everyday commu-nication during the devising and rehearsing of speci c productions The fact thatEnglish has become the lingua franca in an increasingly globalized arts communitygives its native speakers considerable power to substantiate their views andorsecure their particular agendas In this respect we should remember that thewide-scale imposition of imperial languages on non-Western peoples has consti-tuted an insidious form of epistemic violence since the system of values inherentin a language becomes the ldquosystem upon which social economic and politicaldiscourses are groundedrdquo (Ashcroft Grif ths and Tif n 1995283) To ask whosevalues are heard and whose are silenced by the use of speci c languages thereforeseems essential to a more politicized form of interculturalism In addition wemight ask how linguistic translationsare conducted and whose interests they serveDoes the translator function as a negotiator or a type of ldquonative informantrdquo Whathappens to linguistic concepts that resist translation or adaptation In terms oftheatrical product language issues are equally complicated How do staged lan-guages animate one another Which carries the cultural authority What happensto the performative features of verbal enunciation particularly when stories frompredominantly oral cultures are presented How might we reread verbally silencedbodies in different ways

Cross-Cultural Theatre Praxis 47

Since intercultural theatre stages a meeting of cultures in both physical andimaginative realmsmdashthe actual place(s) where a project takes place as well as the ctional spaces represented by the mise-en-scenemdashits spatial semantics also de-mand analysis Space is neither neutral nor homogenous it inevitably colors thoserelationships within its limits especially on the stage where con gurations ofspace take on symbolic meaning We need to ask then how the physical spacemeeting place in ects intercultural collaborationWhose ground are we on Whatare the power relations inscribed in the architectural aspects of that place Howcan theatre provide a space for negotiatingor subverting the relationships its spatialcon gurations foster We also need to examine the ideological assumptions thatinhere in the imaginative space(s) created by the scenography What does the setfor instance convey about the cultures involved in the collaboration Whichactors and characters have access topriority over what spaces Where are theborders between cultures and how are they maintained traversed or brokendown What kind of cultural landscape is suggested by the stagescape

Postcolonial theorizing of geography cartography and spatial history showshow space is constructed in the nexus of power and culture rather than simplyexisting as an ontological category This kind of politicized approach brings intofocus the disjunctive gap between visible space and its ctional referent (what weinfer or imagine from our culturally in ected reading of proxemics) It is thenpossible to explore the rhizomatic potential of interculturalismmdashits ability to makemultiple connections and disconnections between cultural spacesmdashand to createrepresentations that are unbounded and open and potentially resistant to im-perialist forms of closure

The body in intercultural theatre is equally subject to multiple inscriptionsproducing an unstable signi er rather than a totalized identity It is a site of con-vergence for contesting discourses even though it may be marked with the dis-tinctive signs of a particular culture Postcolonial theory aims to foreground theways in which power is inscribed on and negotiated through the body Suchtheory continually questions what is spoken through the body how its languagesoperate and in the service of whose vested interests It maintains that the bodyis not only a site of knowledgepower but also a site of resistance which inElizabeth Groszrsquos words ldquoexerts a recalcitrance and always entails the possibilityof counterstrategic re-inscription [because] it is capable of being self-marked self-represented in alternative waysrdquo (199064) We need then to look at how resis-tance is expressed in relation to performative bodies how those bodies encodedifference and speci city and how they can prevent the universalizing impulseof transculturalism

As categories that are constructed through visible differences race and genderhave particular signi cance in this respect it is important to note however thatthese are complex and even unstable categories being historically conditionedrather than determined solely by biology One of the problems intercultural the-atre often faces is how to avoid essentialist constructions of race and gender whilestill accounting for the irreducible speci city of certain bodies and body behav-iors A common response is to elevate particular roles in source texts to the level ofarchetypes that can then be played by any skilled performer Peter Brookrsquos Ma-habharata has been accused of this approach (Dasgupta 1991 Bharucha 199368ndash87) This process of distillation strips the readable signs of culture from the sourcetext rather than provoke the audience to examine the tensions between partici-pating cultures There is no dialogic interaction instead a speci c body is sub-merged in the archetypal role according to the aesthetic principles of the projectPostcolonial theory warns against the dehistoricizing effects of such distillationprocesses It focuses on analyzing the gap between the material body and what itis supposed to represent This involves examining movement as well as bodily ap-

48 LoGilbert

pearance since as Pavis notes ldquoactors simultaneously reveal the culture of thecommunity where they have trained and where they live and the bodily tech-nique they have acquiredrdquo (19963) Rather than working from principles of ab-straction an intercultural practice informed by postcolonialism would play upcultural differences without attempting to deny the effects of the political econ-omy that underpins the project The hybrid counter-energies that result from theclash between the symbolic space and the culturally inscribed body can then pro-duce ldquoa radical heterogeneity discontinuity [and] the perpetual revolutionof formrdquo(Young 199525)

A politicized reading of costume is similarly necessary to the formulation of amore comprehensive theory about intercultural performance It seems that partof the attraction of interculturalism has to do with the fantasy of stepping intoldquonativerdquo costume in a process of cultural transvestism that does anything butsubvert power hierarchies As Gail Ching-Liang Low argues the fantasy of cross-cultural dressing identi es clothes as a ldquolsquobadge and advertisementrsquo of [the domi-nant culturersquos] ability to cross the class and cultural gaprdquo hence cultural transvestismoffers ldquothe promise of lsquotransgressiversquo pleasure without the penalties of actualchangerdquo (198992ndash93) If such transvestism could be used to draw attention tothe dif culties that inhere in crossing cultural gaps costume would then becomeanother possible site of resistant inscription rather than a conduit for the one-waycultural transfer that currently characterizes certain forms of interculturalismThisis where postcolonial theories about mimicry masquerade and self-consciousconstructions of subjectivity can come into play because they treat costume as amalleable and even ambiguous signi er rather than a transparent sign of particulargender racial social and national identities

Degrees of power and privilege are also embedded in the framing mechanismsthrough which particular elements of a performance are presented to its audi-ence(s) Typically intercultural theatre positions the performance traditions andoractual bodies of ldquootherrdquo cultures as focal points of the Western viewerrsquos specularconsumption and it is through this kind of untroubled and desiring gaze thatrei ed images of cultural difference are validated and circulated on the ldquointer-nationalrdquo arts market If intercultural theatre means to address the potential in-equities involved in Western appropriations of other cultural traditions then itsadherents must conceive of a theatre that somehow engages with its own estab-lished ldquolookingrdquo relations Interventionary frameworks and other metatheatricaldevicesmdashthese might range from direct audience address to self-conscious roleplaying to forum discussionmdashcan be used to problematize the implicitly im-perialist object-relations model of cross-cultural spectatorship Within the self-re exive theatre that we envision the hybridizing of cultural fragments wouldbe far from seamless cultural tensions would not be hidden nor difference nat-uralized

Conclusion

We have attempted to map the eld of cross-cultural theatre as a way of think-ing through its complexities and contradictions Despite our efforts to integratea diverse range of theories and practices into a ldquobig-picturerdquo account of the eldwe are not advocating a totalizing theory of cultural exchange Rather our dis-cussion is designed to enable a strategic way of rethinking the local and context-speci c through the global and vice versa This sort of matrixed model we wouldargue proffers a more nuanced method of actualizing and analyzing the range ofwork that is increasingly becoming a globalized praxis

Our all too brief survey of potential sites of intervention in the practice andinterpretation of intercultural theatre outlines some of the ways in which the

Cross-Cultural Theatre Praxis 49

mise-en-scene can be politicized and the notion of cultural hegemony relativizedIn an age where cultural boundaries are continually traversed and identities arebecoming increasingly hybridized an intercultural theatre practice informed bypostcolonial theory can potentially function as a site where this intersecting ofcultures is both re ected and critiqued Such a practice would align with (thoughnot necessarily replicate) Gomez-Penarsquos formulation of ldquoborder artrdquo in whichthe performerrsquos job is ldquoto trespass bridge interconnect reinterpret remap andrede nerdquo the limits of culture (199612) It is vital that intercultural theatrersquospotential to cross cultures is not co-opted and neutralized by the ldquoweakerrdquo formsof postmodernism which tend to result in an abstract depoliticized and ahis-torical notion of ldquodifferencerdquo or in effect a masked ldquoindifferencerdquo In this re-spect Homi Bhabharsquos clari cation of postcolonial hybridity as based on anagonistic relationship rather than a seamless fusion offers a workable model foran ethics as well as an aesthetics of cross-cultural engagement

Hybrid hyphenations emphasise the incommensurable elements [] as thebasis of cultural identi cations What is at issue is the performative natureof differential identities the regulation and negotiation of those spaces thatare continually contingently ldquoopening outrdquo remaking the boundariesexposing the limits of any claim to a singular or autonomous sign of dif-ferencemdashbe it class gender or race Such assignations of social differ-encesmdashwhere difference is neither One nor the Other but something elsebesides in-betweenmdash nd their agency in [] an interstitial future thatemerges in between the claims of the past and the needs of the present(1994219)

The kind of hyphenated hybridity that Bhabha outlines is already within theconceptual reach of interculturalism It is now time for a more sustained andsystematic engagement with the politics of its production

Notes

1 ldquoAgencyrdquo refers here to the potential to act or perform an action autonomously it registersdegrees of power and knowledge combined since to act autonomously is to understand theideological systems in which one is imbricated

2 For an extended discussion of multiculturalism in Canada Australia and the United Statessee Gunew (199351ndash65)

3 See Bennett (1996144ndash47) for examples of small ldquomrdquo multicultural theatre in which blind-cast productions of Shakespearersquos The Tempest unwittingly reproduced dominant culturalvalues

4 Guillermo Gomez-Pena critiques a similar model of intercultural encounter in his conceptof ldquocorporaterdquo or ldquotransnationalrdquo multiculturalism which he argues characterizes manybusiness and media conglomeratesrsquo current interest in difference Such difference performsthe ldquopassive roles of glossy images and exotic backgroundrdquo and real diversity is ldquo attenedand equalized by high production valuesrdquo (200112)

5 Examples of big ldquoMrdquo multicultural theatre include various projects done by El Teatro Cam-pesino (US) Talawa (Britain) Doppio Teatro and Urban Theatre Projects (Australia) andCahoots Theatre Projects (Canada) Of course there have been numerous projects (espe-cially in non-Western countries) that t within our de nition of multicultural theatre al-though the speci c practitioners involved may not identify their work in this way Examplesinclude projects by Five Arts Centre (Malaysia) William Kentridge and the HandspringPuppet Company (South Africa) Rustom Bharucha (India) and Gomez-Pena (USAMexico)

6 Our identi cation of ghetto and migrant theatres is in uenced by Richard Fotheringhamrsquoswork ([1987] 1992197ndash98)

7 For further explication of community theatre see Baz Kershaw (1992)

50 LoGilbert

8 For some time postcolonial theatre has been well theorized as a conceptual category albeita contested one however in-depth engagement with postcolonialism has been conspicu-ously absent from discussions of cross-cultural performance work in journals such as TDRSimilarly Patrice Pavisrsquos introduction to The Intercultural Performance Reader (1996) virtuallydismisses the eld of postcolonial theatre even though some of the bookrsquos contents clearly t within this grouping

9 Wole Soyinka Derek Walcott and Girish Karnad are the most prominent of a very largeand diverse group of dramatists who might be catagorized as ldquopostcolonialrdquo Well-knownindigenous theatre groups in countries permanently colonized by European powers includeKooemba Jdarra (Australia) Taki Rua Productions (New Zealand) Spiderwoman (USA) andNative Earth Performing Arts (Canada) See Gilbert and Tompkins (1996) for an extendedaccount of the eld

10 See the introduction to Christopher Balmersquos book Decolonizing the Stage Theatrical Syncre-tism and Post-Colonial Drama (1999) for an extended history of the conceptual category ofsyncretic theatre Balme has been the key theorist of this form of cross-cultural performancefor several years though he initially assessed its overarching function as cultural rapproche-ment rather than decolonization andor resistance

11 His notable theatre projects include Tooth of Crime (1973) Mother Courage (1975) The Pro-metheus Project (1983ndash85) and Three Sisters (1995ndash97)

12 The Tales from South Asia project as documented by Sharon Grady and Phillip Zarilli (1994)exhibits most of the features of the collaborative model The stated aims of the projectrsquosinitiators were to

develop a strategy of presentation and representation which engages an audienceandor students in ldquodifferencerdquo without stereotyping essentializing romanticizingthe ldquoother and keeping onersquos audience aware of contestation as a social realityrdquo(Grady and Zarilli 1994169)

13 Similar celebratory responses can be found in Williams (1992) and Wilshire and Wilshire(1989)

14 This position has been described elsewhere as ldquohappy hybridityrdquo (see Lo 2000)15 Schechnerrsquos 1989 article ldquoIntercultural Themesrdquo maps his thinking on the subject up to

the end of the 1980s see his 1996 interview with Pavis for a more recent account16 On a similar note Craig Latrell recently argued for a more complex reading of intercultural

exchange beyond the ldquovictim-victimizer narrativerdquo The non-Western cultures should notbe perceived as passive receivers of Western ideas but rather active manipulators of suchin uences (200045ndash46) His analysis of the speci city of theatrical agency is howeverweakened by the lack of attention to historical speci city and particularly the impact ofcolonialism in Singapore and Indonesia

17 For detailed explanation see Pavis (19924ndash20)18 Pavis adheres to the idea of turning the hourglass over for other perspectives but unlike

his earlier theorization which advocated the reversal as a way for the source culture tomonitor its own process of exchange the latest discussion appears to consolidate the primacyof the dominant culture

At the end of the process when spectators feel themselves buried alive under thesand of signs and symbols they have no other salvation than to give up and turn thehourglass upside down Then the perspective inverts and one must reverse andrelativize the sediments accumulated in the receiving culture and judge them fromthe point of view of alterity and relativity (199618)

19 For a fuller account of various modes of hybridity see Lo (2000152ndash55)20 See Gilbert (199813ndash25) for a more detailed discussion of the ways in which postcolonial

theory can be used to interpret ideological aspects of performance

References

Ambush Benny Sato1989 ldquoPluralism to the Bonerdquo American Theatre 615

Cross-Cultural Theatre Praxis 51

Ang Ien and John Stratton1994 ldquoMulticultural Imagined Communities Cultural Difference and National Iden-

tity in Australia and the USArdquo Continuum The Australian Journal of Media andCulture 8 2124ndash58

Ashcroft Bill Gareth Grif ths and Helen Tif n eds1995 The Post-Colonial Studies Reader London Routledge

Balme Christopher1999 Decolonizing the Stage Theatrical Syncretism and Post-Colonial Drama Oxford Ox-

ford University Press

Barba Eugenio1996 ldquoEurasian Theatrerdquo In The Intercultural Performance Reader edited by Patrice Pav-

ice 217ndash22 London Routledge

Bennett Susan1996 Performing Nostalgia Shifting Shakespeare and the ContemporaryPast LondonRout-

ledge

Bhabha Homi1994 The Location of Culture London Routledge

Bharucha Rustom1993 Theatre and the World Performance and the Politics of Culture London Routledge2000 The Politics of Cultural Practice Thinking through Theatre in an Age of Globalisation

London Athlone Press

Brandon James1990 ldquoContemporary Japanese Theatre Interculturalism and Intraculturalismrdquo In The

Dramatic Touch of Difference Theatre Own and Foreign edited by Erika Fischer-Lichte Michael Gissenwehrer and Josephine Riley 89ndash97 Tubingen Narr

Brown John Russell1998 ldquoTheatrical Pillage in Asia Redirecting the Intercultural Traf crdquo New Theatre

Quarterly 14 539ndash19

Carlson Marvin1990 ldquoPeter Brookrsquos The Mahabharata and Ariane Mnouchkinersquos LrsquoIndiade as Ex-

amples of Contemporary Cross-cultural Theatrerdquo In The Dramatic Touch of Dif-ference Theatre Own and Foreign edited by Erika Fischer-Lichte Michael Gissen-wehrer and Josephine Riley 49ndash56 Tubingen Narr

Carter David1986 ldquoThe Natives Are Getting Restless Nationalism Multiculturalism and Migrant

Writingrdquo Island Magazine 25263ndash8

Chin Daryl1991 ldquoInterculturalism Postmodernism Pluralismrdquo In Interculturalism and Performance

Writings from PAJ edited by Bonnie Marranca and Gautam Dasgupta 83ndash95New York PAJ Publications

Clifford James1994 ldquoDiasporasrdquo Cultural Anthropology 9 3 302ndash38

Dasgupta Gautam1991 ldquoThe Mahabharata Peter Brookrsquos Orientalismrdquo In Interculturalism and Perfor-

mance Writings from PAJ edited by Bonnie Marranca and Gautam Dasgupta 75ndash82 New York PAJ Publications

De Reuck Jenny2000 ldquolsquoThe mirror shattered into tiny piecesrsquo Reading Gender and Culture in the

Japan Foundation Asia Centrersquos LEARrdquo Intersections Online Asian Studies Journal3 6 httpwwwsshemurdocheduauintersectionsissue3jenny3html (12January 2001)

Cross-Cultural Theatre Praxis 47

Since intercultural theatre stages a meeting of cultures in both physical andimaginative realmsmdashthe actual place(s) where a project takes place as well as the ctional spaces represented by the mise-en-scenemdashits spatial semantics also de-mand analysis Space is neither neutral nor homogenous it inevitably colors thoserelationships within its limits especially on the stage where con gurations ofspace take on symbolic meaning We need to ask then how the physical spacemeeting place in ects intercultural collaborationWhose ground are we on Whatare the power relations inscribed in the architectural aspects of that place Howcan theatre provide a space for negotiatingor subverting the relationships its spatialcon gurations foster We also need to examine the ideological assumptions thatinhere in the imaginative space(s) created by the scenography What does the setfor instance convey about the cultures involved in the collaboration Whichactors and characters have access topriority over what spaces Where are theborders between cultures and how are they maintained traversed or brokendown What kind of cultural landscape is suggested by the stagescape

Postcolonial theorizing of geography cartography and spatial history showshow space is constructed in the nexus of power and culture rather than simplyexisting as an ontological category This kind of politicized approach brings intofocus the disjunctive gap between visible space and its ctional referent (what weinfer or imagine from our culturally in ected reading of proxemics) It is thenpossible to explore the rhizomatic potential of interculturalismmdashits ability to makemultiple connections and disconnections between cultural spacesmdashand to createrepresentations that are unbounded and open and potentially resistant to im-perialist forms of closure

The body in intercultural theatre is equally subject to multiple inscriptionsproducing an unstable signi er rather than a totalized identity It is a site of con-vergence for contesting discourses even though it may be marked with the dis-tinctive signs of a particular culture Postcolonial theory aims to foreground theways in which power is inscribed on and negotiated through the body Suchtheory continually questions what is spoken through the body how its languagesoperate and in the service of whose vested interests It maintains that the bodyis not only a site of knowledgepower but also a site of resistance which inElizabeth Groszrsquos words ldquoexerts a recalcitrance and always entails the possibilityof counterstrategic re-inscription [because] it is capable of being self-marked self-represented in alternative waysrdquo (199064) We need then to look at how resis-tance is expressed in relation to performative bodies how those bodies encodedifference and speci city and how they can prevent the universalizing impulseof transculturalism

As categories that are constructed through visible differences race and genderhave particular signi cance in this respect it is important to note however thatthese are complex and even unstable categories being historically conditionedrather than determined solely by biology One of the problems intercultural the-atre often faces is how to avoid essentialist constructions of race and gender whilestill accounting for the irreducible speci city of certain bodies and body behav-iors A common response is to elevate particular roles in source texts to the level ofarchetypes that can then be played by any skilled performer Peter Brookrsquos Ma-habharata has been accused of this approach (Dasgupta 1991 Bharucha 199368ndash87) This process of distillation strips the readable signs of culture from the sourcetext rather than provoke the audience to examine the tensions between partici-pating cultures There is no dialogic interaction instead a speci c body is sub-merged in the archetypal role according to the aesthetic principles of the projectPostcolonial theory warns against the dehistoricizing effects of such distillationprocesses It focuses on analyzing the gap between the material body and what itis supposed to represent This involves examining movement as well as bodily ap-

48 LoGilbert

pearance since as Pavis notes ldquoactors simultaneously reveal the culture of thecommunity where they have trained and where they live and the bodily tech-nique they have acquiredrdquo (19963) Rather than working from principles of ab-straction an intercultural practice informed by postcolonialism would play upcultural differences without attempting to deny the effects of the political econ-omy that underpins the project The hybrid counter-energies that result from theclash between the symbolic space and the culturally inscribed body can then pro-duce ldquoa radical heterogeneity discontinuity [and] the perpetual revolutionof formrdquo(Young 199525)

A politicized reading of costume is similarly necessary to the formulation of amore comprehensive theory about intercultural performance It seems that partof the attraction of interculturalism has to do with the fantasy of stepping intoldquonativerdquo costume in a process of cultural transvestism that does anything butsubvert power hierarchies As Gail Ching-Liang Low argues the fantasy of cross-cultural dressing identi es clothes as a ldquolsquobadge and advertisementrsquo of [the domi-nant culturersquos] ability to cross the class and cultural gaprdquo hence cultural transvestismoffers ldquothe promise of lsquotransgressiversquo pleasure without the penalties of actualchangerdquo (198992ndash93) If such transvestism could be used to draw attention tothe dif culties that inhere in crossing cultural gaps costume would then becomeanother possible site of resistant inscription rather than a conduit for the one-waycultural transfer that currently characterizes certain forms of interculturalismThisis where postcolonial theories about mimicry masquerade and self-consciousconstructions of subjectivity can come into play because they treat costume as amalleable and even ambiguous signi er rather than a transparent sign of particulargender racial social and national identities

Degrees of power and privilege are also embedded in the framing mechanismsthrough which particular elements of a performance are presented to its audi-ence(s) Typically intercultural theatre positions the performance traditions andoractual bodies of ldquootherrdquo cultures as focal points of the Western viewerrsquos specularconsumption and it is through this kind of untroubled and desiring gaze thatrei ed images of cultural difference are validated and circulated on the ldquointer-nationalrdquo arts market If intercultural theatre means to address the potential in-equities involved in Western appropriations of other cultural traditions then itsadherents must conceive of a theatre that somehow engages with its own estab-lished ldquolookingrdquo relations Interventionary frameworks and other metatheatricaldevicesmdashthese might range from direct audience address to self-conscious roleplaying to forum discussionmdashcan be used to problematize the implicitly im-perialist object-relations model of cross-cultural spectatorship Within the self-re exive theatre that we envision the hybridizing of cultural fragments wouldbe far from seamless cultural tensions would not be hidden nor difference nat-uralized

Conclusion

We have attempted to map the eld of cross-cultural theatre as a way of think-ing through its complexities and contradictions Despite our efforts to integratea diverse range of theories and practices into a ldquobig-picturerdquo account of the eldwe are not advocating a totalizing theory of cultural exchange Rather our dis-cussion is designed to enable a strategic way of rethinking the local and context-speci c through the global and vice versa This sort of matrixed model we wouldargue proffers a more nuanced method of actualizing and analyzing the range ofwork that is increasingly becoming a globalized praxis

Our all too brief survey of potential sites of intervention in the practice andinterpretation of intercultural theatre outlines some of the ways in which the

Cross-Cultural Theatre Praxis 49

mise-en-scene can be politicized and the notion of cultural hegemony relativizedIn an age where cultural boundaries are continually traversed and identities arebecoming increasingly hybridized an intercultural theatre practice informed bypostcolonial theory can potentially function as a site where this intersecting ofcultures is both re ected and critiqued Such a practice would align with (thoughnot necessarily replicate) Gomez-Penarsquos formulation of ldquoborder artrdquo in whichthe performerrsquos job is ldquoto trespass bridge interconnect reinterpret remap andrede nerdquo the limits of culture (199612) It is vital that intercultural theatrersquospotential to cross cultures is not co-opted and neutralized by the ldquoweakerrdquo formsof postmodernism which tend to result in an abstract depoliticized and ahis-torical notion of ldquodifferencerdquo or in effect a masked ldquoindifferencerdquo In this re-spect Homi Bhabharsquos clari cation of postcolonial hybridity as based on anagonistic relationship rather than a seamless fusion offers a workable model foran ethics as well as an aesthetics of cross-cultural engagement

Hybrid hyphenations emphasise the incommensurable elements [] as thebasis of cultural identi cations What is at issue is the performative natureof differential identities the regulation and negotiation of those spaces thatare continually contingently ldquoopening outrdquo remaking the boundariesexposing the limits of any claim to a singular or autonomous sign of dif-ferencemdashbe it class gender or race Such assignations of social differ-encesmdashwhere difference is neither One nor the Other but something elsebesides in-betweenmdash nd their agency in [] an interstitial future thatemerges in between the claims of the past and the needs of the present(1994219)

The kind of hyphenated hybridity that Bhabha outlines is already within theconceptual reach of interculturalism It is now time for a more sustained andsystematic engagement with the politics of its production

Notes

1 ldquoAgencyrdquo refers here to the potential to act or perform an action autonomously it registersdegrees of power and knowledge combined since to act autonomously is to understand theideological systems in which one is imbricated

2 For an extended discussion of multiculturalism in Canada Australia and the United Statessee Gunew (199351ndash65)

3 See Bennett (1996144ndash47) for examples of small ldquomrdquo multicultural theatre in which blind-cast productions of Shakespearersquos The Tempest unwittingly reproduced dominant culturalvalues

4 Guillermo Gomez-Pena critiques a similar model of intercultural encounter in his conceptof ldquocorporaterdquo or ldquotransnationalrdquo multiculturalism which he argues characterizes manybusiness and media conglomeratesrsquo current interest in difference Such difference performsthe ldquopassive roles of glossy images and exotic backgroundrdquo and real diversity is ldquo attenedand equalized by high production valuesrdquo (200112)

5 Examples of big ldquoMrdquo multicultural theatre include various projects done by El Teatro Cam-pesino (US) Talawa (Britain) Doppio Teatro and Urban Theatre Projects (Australia) andCahoots Theatre Projects (Canada) Of course there have been numerous projects (espe-cially in non-Western countries) that t within our de nition of multicultural theatre al-though the speci c practitioners involved may not identify their work in this way Examplesinclude projects by Five Arts Centre (Malaysia) William Kentridge and the HandspringPuppet Company (South Africa) Rustom Bharucha (India) and Gomez-Pena (USAMexico)

6 Our identi cation of ghetto and migrant theatres is in uenced by Richard Fotheringhamrsquoswork ([1987] 1992197ndash98)

7 For further explication of community theatre see Baz Kershaw (1992)

50 LoGilbert

8 For some time postcolonial theatre has been well theorized as a conceptual category albeita contested one however in-depth engagement with postcolonialism has been conspicu-ously absent from discussions of cross-cultural performance work in journals such as TDRSimilarly Patrice Pavisrsquos introduction to The Intercultural Performance Reader (1996) virtuallydismisses the eld of postcolonial theatre even though some of the bookrsquos contents clearly t within this grouping

9 Wole Soyinka Derek Walcott and Girish Karnad are the most prominent of a very largeand diverse group of dramatists who might be catagorized as ldquopostcolonialrdquo Well-knownindigenous theatre groups in countries permanently colonized by European powers includeKooemba Jdarra (Australia) Taki Rua Productions (New Zealand) Spiderwoman (USA) andNative Earth Performing Arts (Canada) See Gilbert and Tompkins (1996) for an extendedaccount of the eld

10 See the introduction to Christopher Balmersquos book Decolonizing the Stage Theatrical Syncre-tism and Post-Colonial Drama (1999) for an extended history of the conceptual category ofsyncretic theatre Balme has been the key theorist of this form of cross-cultural performancefor several years though he initially assessed its overarching function as cultural rapproche-ment rather than decolonization andor resistance

11 His notable theatre projects include Tooth of Crime (1973) Mother Courage (1975) The Pro-metheus Project (1983ndash85) and Three Sisters (1995ndash97)

12 The Tales from South Asia project as documented by Sharon Grady and Phillip Zarilli (1994)exhibits most of the features of the collaborative model The stated aims of the projectrsquosinitiators were to

develop a strategy of presentation and representation which engages an audienceandor students in ldquodifferencerdquo without stereotyping essentializing romanticizingthe ldquoother and keeping onersquos audience aware of contestation as a social realityrdquo(Grady and Zarilli 1994169)

13 Similar celebratory responses can be found in Williams (1992) and Wilshire and Wilshire(1989)

14 This position has been described elsewhere as ldquohappy hybridityrdquo (see Lo 2000)15 Schechnerrsquos 1989 article ldquoIntercultural Themesrdquo maps his thinking on the subject up to

the end of the 1980s see his 1996 interview with Pavis for a more recent account16 On a similar note Craig Latrell recently argued for a more complex reading of intercultural

exchange beyond the ldquovictim-victimizer narrativerdquo The non-Western cultures should notbe perceived as passive receivers of Western ideas but rather active manipulators of suchin uences (200045ndash46) His analysis of the speci city of theatrical agency is howeverweakened by the lack of attention to historical speci city and particularly the impact ofcolonialism in Singapore and Indonesia

17 For detailed explanation see Pavis (19924ndash20)18 Pavis adheres to the idea of turning the hourglass over for other perspectives but unlike

his earlier theorization which advocated the reversal as a way for the source culture tomonitor its own process of exchange the latest discussion appears to consolidate the primacyof the dominant culture

At the end of the process when spectators feel themselves buried alive under thesand of signs and symbols they have no other salvation than to give up and turn thehourglass upside down Then the perspective inverts and one must reverse andrelativize the sediments accumulated in the receiving culture and judge them fromthe point of view of alterity and relativity (199618)

19 For a fuller account of various modes of hybridity see Lo (2000152ndash55)20 See Gilbert (199813ndash25) for a more detailed discussion of the ways in which postcolonial

theory can be used to interpret ideological aspects of performance

References

Ambush Benny Sato1989 ldquoPluralism to the Bonerdquo American Theatre 615

Cross-Cultural Theatre Praxis 51

Ang Ien and John Stratton1994 ldquoMulticultural Imagined Communities Cultural Difference and National Iden-

tity in Australia and the USArdquo Continuum The Australian Journal of Media andCulture 8 2124ndash58

Ashcroft Bill Gareth Grif ths and Helen Tif n eds1995 The Post-Colonial Studies Reader London Routledge

Balme Christopher1999 Decolonizing the Stage Theatrical Syncretism and Post-Colonial Drama Oxford Ox-

ford University Press

Barba Eugenio1996 ldquoEurasian Theatrerdquo In The Intercultural Performance Reader edited by Patrice Pav-

ice 217ndash22 London Routledge

Bennett Susan1996 Performing Nostalgia Shifting Shakespeare and the ContemporaryPast LondonRout-

ledge

Bhabha Homi1994 The Location of Culture London Routledge

Bharucha Rustom1993 Theatre and the World Performance and the Politics of Culture London Routledge2000 The Politics of Cultural Practice Thinking through Theatre in an Age of Globalisation

London Athlone Press

Brandon James1990 ldquoContemporary Japanese Theatre Interculturalism and Intraculturalismrdquo In The

Dramatic Touch of Difference Theatre Own and Foreign edited by Erika Fischer-Lichte Michael Gissenwehrer and Josephine Riley 89ndash97 Tubingen Narr

Brown John Russell1998 ldquoTheatrical Pillage in Asia Redirecting the Intercultural Traf crdquo New Theatre

Quarterly 14 539ndash19

Carlson Marvin1990 ldquoPeter Brookrsquos The Mahabharata and Ariane Mnouchkinersquos LrsquoIndiade as Ex-

amples of Contemporary Cross-cultural Theatrerdquo In The Dramatic Touch of Dif-ference Theatre Own and Foreign edited by Erika Fischer-Lichte Michael Gissen-wehrer and Josephine Riley 49ndash56 Tubingen Narr

Carter David1986 ldquoThe Natives Are Getting Restless Nationalism Multiculturalism and Migrant

Writingrdquo Island Magazine 25263ndash8

Chin Daryl1991 ldquoInterculturalism Postmodernism Pluralismrdquo In Interculturalism and Performance

Writings from PAJ edited by Bonnie Marranca and Gautam Dasgupta 83ndash95New York PAJ Publications

Clifford James1994 ldquoDiasporasrdquo Cultural Anthropology 9 3 302ndash38

Dasgupta Gautam1991 ldquoThe Mahabharata Peter Brookrsquos Orientalismrdquo In Interculturalism and Perfor-

mance Writings from PAJ edited by Bonnie Marranca and Gautam Dasgupta 75ndash82 New York PAJ Publications

De Reuck Jenny2000 ldquolsquoThe mirror shattered into tiny piecesrsquo Reading Gender and Culture in the

Japan Foundation Asia Centrersquos LEARrdquo Intersections Online Asian Studies Journal3 6 httpwwwsshemurdocheduauintersectionsissue3jenny3html (12January 2001)

48 LoGilbert

pearance since as Pavis notes ldquoactors simultaneously reveal the culture of thecommunity where they have trained and where they live and the bodily tech-nique they have acquiredrdquo (19963) Rather than working from principles of ab-straction an intercultural practice informed by postcolonialism would play upcultural differences without attempting to deny the effects of the political econ-omy that underpins the project The hybrid counter-energies that result from theclash between the symbolic space and the culturally inscribed body can then pro-duce ldquoa radical heterogeneity discontinuity [and] the perpetual revolutionof formrdquo(Young 199525)

A politicized reading of costume is similarly necessary to the formulation of amore comprehensive theory about intercultural performance It seems that partof the attraction of interculturalism has to do with the fantasy of stepping intoldquonativerdquo costume in a process of cultural transvestism that does anything butsubvert power hierarchies As Gail Ching-Liang Low argues the fantasy of cross-cultural dressing identi es clothes as a ldquolsquobadge and advertisementrsquo of [the domi-nant culturersquos] ability to cross the class and cultural gaprdquo hence cultural transvestismoffers ldquothe promise of lsquotransgressiversquo pleasure without the penalties of actualchangerdquo (198992ndash93) If such transvestism could be used to draw attention tothe dif culties that inhere in crossing cultural gaps costume would then becomeanother possible site of resistant inscription rather than a conduit for the one-waycultural transfer that currently characterizes certain forms of interculturalismThisis where postcolonial theories about mimicry masquerade and self-consciousconstructions of subjectivity can come into play because they treat costume as amalleable and even ambiguous signi er rather than a transparent sign of particulargender racial social and national identities

Degrees of power and privilege are also embedded in the framing mechanismsthrough which particular elements of a performance are presented to its audi-ence(s) Typically intercultural theatre positions the performance traditions andoractual bodies of ldquootherrdquo cultures as focal points of the Western viewerrsquos specularconsumption and it is through this kind of untroubled and desiring gaze thatrei ed images of cultural difference are validated and circulated on the ldquointer-nationalrdquo arts market If intercultural theatre means to address the potential in-equities involved in Western appropriations of other cultural traditions then itsadherents must conceive of a theatre that somehow engages with its own estab-lished ldquolookingrdquo relations Interventionary frameworks and other metatheatricaldevicesmdashthese might range from direct audience address to self-conscious roleplaying to forum discussionmdashcan be used to problematize the implicitly im-perialist object-relations model of cross-cultural spectatorship Within the self-re exive theatre that we envision the hybridizing of cultural fragments wouldbe far from seamless cultural tensions would not be hidden nor difference nat-uralized

Conclusion

We have attempted to map the eld of cross-cultural theatre as a way of think-ing through its complexities and contradictions Despite our efforts to integratea diverse range of theories and practices into a ldquobig-picturerdquo account of the eldwe are not advocating a totalizing theory of cultural exchange Rather our dis-cussion is designed to enable a strategic way of rethinking the local and context-speci c through the global and vice versa This sort of matrixed model we wouldargue proffers a more nuanced method of actualizing and analyzing the range ofwork that is increasingly becoming a globalized praxis

Our all too brief survey of potential sites of intervention in the practice andinterpretation of intercultural theatre outlines some of the ways in which the

Cross-Cultural Theatre Praxis 49

mise-en-scene can be politicized and the notion of cultural hegemony relativizedIn an age where cultural boundaries are continually traversed and identities arebecoming increasingly hybridized an intercultural theatre practice informed bypostcolonial theory can potentially function as a site where this intersecting ofcultures is both re ected and critiqued Such a practice would align with (thoughnot necessarily replicate) Gomez-Penarsquos formulation of ldquoborder artrdquo in whichthe performerrsquos job is ldquoto trespass bridge interconnect reinterpret remap andrede nerdquo the limits of culture (199612) It is vital that intercultural theatrersquospotential to cross cultures is not co-opted and neutralized by the ldquoweakerrdquo formsof postmodernism which tend to result in an abstract depoliticized and ahis-torical notion of ldquodifferencerdquo or in effect a masked ldquoindifferencerdquo In this re-spect Homi Bhabharsquos clari cation of postcolonial hybridity as based on anagonistic relationship rather than a seamless fusion offers a workable model foran ethics as well as an aesthetics of cross-cultural engagement

Hybrid hyphenations emphasise the incommensurable elements [] as thebasis of cultural identi cations What is at issue is the performative natureof differential identities the regulation and negotiation of those spaces thatare continually contingently ldquoopening outrdquo remaking the boundariesexposing the limits of any claim to a singular or autonomous sign of dif-ferencemdashbe it class gender or race Such assignations of social differ-encesmdashwhere difference is neither One nor the Other but something elsebesides in-betweenmdash nd their agency in [] an interstitial future thatemerges in between the claims of the past and the needs of the present(1994219)

The kind of hyphenated hybridity that Bhabha outlines is already within theconceptual reach of interculturalism It is now time for a more sustained andsystematic engagement with the politics of its production

Notes

1 ldquoAgencyrdquo refers here to the potential to act or perform an action autonomously it registersdegrees of power and knowledge combined since to act autonomously is to understand theideological systems in which one is imbricated

2 For an extended discussion of multiculturalism in Canada Australia and the United Statessee Gunew (199351ndash65)

3 See Bennett (1996144ndash47) for examples of small ldquomrdquo multicultural theatre in which blind-cast productions of Shakespearersquos The Tempest unwittingly reproduced dominant culturalvalues

4 Guillermo Gomez-Pena critiques a similar model of intercultural encounter in his conceptof ldquocorporaterdquo or ldquotransnationalrdquo multiculturalism which he argues characterizes manybusiness and media conglomeratesrsquo current interest in difference Such difference performsthe ldquopassive roles of glossy images and exotic backgroundrdquo and real diversity is ldquo attenedand equalized by high production valuesrdquo (200112)

5 Examples of big ldquoMrdquo multicultural theatre include various projects done by El Teatro Cam-pesino (US) Talawa (Britain) Doppio Teatro and Urban Theatre Projects (Australia) andCahoots Theatre Projects (Canada) Of course there have been numerous projects (espe-cially in non-Western countries) that t within our de nition of multicultural theatre al-though the speci c practitioners involved may not identify their work in this way Examplesinclude projects by Five Arts Centre (Malaysia) William Kentridge and the HandspringPuppet Company (South Africa) Rustom Bharucha (India) and Gomez-Pena (USAMexico)

6 Our identi cation of ghetto and migrant theatres is in uenced by Richard Fotheringhamrsquoswork ([1987] 1992197ndash98)

7 For further explication of community theatre see Baz Kershaw (1992)

50 LoGilbert

8 For some time postcolonial theatre has been well theorized as a conceptual category albeita contested one however in-depth engagement with postcolonialism has been conspicu-ously absent from discussions of cross-cultural performance work in journals such as TDRSimilarly Patrice Pavisrsquos introduction to The Intercultural Performance Reader (1996) virtuallydismisses the eld of postcolonial theatre even though some of the bookrsquos contents clearly t within this grouping

9 Wole Soyinka Derek Walcott and Girish Karnad are the most prominent of a very largeand diverse group of dramatists who might be catagorized as ldquopostcolonialrdquo Well-knownindigenous theatre groups in countries permanently colonized by European powers includeKooemba Jdarra (Australia) Taki Rua Productions (New Zealand) Spiderwoman (USA) andNative Earth Performing Arts (Canada) See Gilbert and Tompkins (1996) for an extendedaccount of the eld

10 See the introduction to Christopher Balmersquos book Decolonizing the Stage Theatrical Syncre-tism and Post-Colonial Drama (1999) for an extended history of the conceptual category ofsyncretic theatre Balme has been the key theorist of this form of cross-cultural performancefor several years though he initially assessed its overarching function as cultural rapproche-ment rather than decolonization andor resistance

11 His notable theatre projects include Tooth of Crime (1973) Mother Courage (1975) The Pro-metheus Project (1983ndash85) and Three Sisters (1995ndash97)

12 The Tales from South Asia project as documented by Sharon Grady and Phillip Zarilli (1994)exhibits most of the features of the collaborative model The stated aims of the projectrsquosinitiators were to

develop a strategy of presentation and representation which engages an audienceandor students in ldquodifferencerdquo without stereotyping essentializing romanticizingthe ldquoother and keeping onersquos audience aware of contestation as a social realityrdquo(Grady and Zarilli 1994169)

13 Similar celebratory responses can be found in Williams (1992) and Wilshire and Wilshire(1989)

14 This position has been described elsewhere as ldquohappy hybridityrdquo (see Lo 2000)15 Schechnerrsquos 1989 article ldquoIntercultural Themesrdquo maps his thinking on the subject up to

the end of the 1980s see his 1996 interview with Pavis for a more recent account16 On a similar note Craig Latrell recently argued for a more complex reading of intercultural

exchange beyond the ldquovictim-victimizer narrativerdquo The non-Western cultures should notbe perceived as passive receivers of Western ideas but rather active manipulators of suchin uences (200045ndash46) His analysis of the speci city of theatrical agency is howeverweakened by the lack of attention to historical speci city and particularly the impact ofcolonialism in Singapore and Indonesia

17 For detailed explanation see Pavis (19924ndash20)18 Pavis adheres to the idea of turning the hourglass over for other perspectives but unlike

his earlier theorization which advocated the reversal as a way for the source culture tomonitor its own process of exchange the latest discussion appears to consolidate the primacyof the dominant culture

At the end of the process when spectators feel themselves buried alive under thesand of signs and symbols they have no other salvation than to give up and turn thehourglass upside down Then the perspective inverts and one must reverse andrelativize the sediments accumulated in the receiving culture and judge them fromthe point of view of alterity and relativity (199618)

19 For a fuller account of various modes of hybridity see Lo (2000152ndash55)20 See Gilbert (199813ndash25) for a more detailed discussion of the ways in which postcolonial

theory can be used to interpret ideological aspects of performance

References

Ambush Benny Sato1989 ldquoPluralism to the Bonerdquo American Theatre 615

Cross-Cultural Theatre Praxis 51

Ang Ien and John Stratton1994 ldquoMulticultural Imagined Communities Cultural Difference and National Iden-

tity in Australia and the USArdquo Continuum The Australian Journal of Media andCulture 8 2124ndash58

Ashcroft Bill Gareth Grif ths and Helen Tif n eds1995 The Post-Colonial Studies Reader London Routledge

Balme Christopher1999 Decolonizing the Stage Theatrical Syncretism and Post-Colonial Drama Oxford Ox-

ford University Press

Barba Eugenio1996 ldquoEurasian Theatrerdquo In The Intercultural Performance Reader edited by Patrice Pav-

ice 217ndash22 London Routledge

Bennett Susan1996 Performing Nostalgia Shifting Shakespeare and the ContemporaryPast LondonRout-

ledge

Bhabha Homi1994 The Location of Culture London Routledge

Bharucha Rustom1993 Theatre and the World Performance and the Politics of Culture London Routledge2000 The Politics of Cultural Practice Thinking through Theatre in an Age of Globalisation

London Athlone Press

Brandon James1990 ldquoContemporary Japanese Theatre Interculturalism and Intraculturalismrdquo In The

Dramatic Touch of Difference Theatre Own and Foreign edited by Erika Fischer-Lichte Michael Gissenwehrer and Josephine Riley 89ndash97 Tubingen Narr

Brown John Russell1998 ldquoTheatrical Pillage in Asia Redirecting the Intercultural Traf crdquo New Theatre

Quarterly 14 539ndash19

Carlson Marvin1990 ldquoPeter Brookrsquos The Mahabharata and Ariane Mnouchkinersquos LrsquoIndiade as Ex-

amples of Contemporary Cross-cultural Theatrerdquo In The Dramatic Touch of Dif-ference Theatre Own and Foreign edited by Erika Fischer-Lichte Michael Gissen-wehrer and Josephine Riley 49ndash56 Tubingen Narr

Carter David1986 ldquoThe Natives Are Getting Restless Nationalism Multiculturalism and Migrant

Writingrdquo Island Magazine 25263ndash8

Chin Daryl1991 ldquoInterculturalism Postmodernism Pluralismrdquo In Interculturalism and Performance

Writings from PAJ edited by Bonnie Marranca and Gautam Dasgupta 83ndash95New York PAJ Publications

Clifford James1994 ldquoDiasporasrdquo Cultural Anthropology 9 3 302ndash38

Dasgupta Gautam1991 ldquoThe Mahabharata Peter Brookrsquos Orientalismrdquo In Interculturalism and Perfor-

mance Writings from PAJ edited by Bonnie Marranca and Gautam Dasgupta 75ndash82 New York PAJ Publications

De Reuck Jenny2000 ldquolsquoThe mirror shattered into tiny piecesrsquo Reading Gender and Culture in the

Japan Foundation Asia Centrersquos LEARrdquo Intersections Online Asian Studies Journal3 6 httpwwwsshemurdocheduauintersectionsissue3jenny3html (12January 2001)

Cross-Cultural Theatre Praxis 49

mise-en-scene can be politicized and the notion of cultural hegemony relativizedIn an age where cultural boundaries are continually traversed and identities arebecoming increasingly hybridized an intercultural theatre practice informed bypostcolonial theory can potentially function as a site where this intersecting ofcultures is both re ected and critiqued Such a practice would align with (thoughnot necessarily replicate) Gomez-Penarsquos formulation of ldquoborder artrdquo in whichthe performerrsquos job is ldquoto trespass bridge interconnect reinterpret remap andrede nerdquo the limits of culture (199612) It is vital that intercultural theatrersquospotential to cross cultures is not co-opted and neutralized by the ldquoweakerrdquo formsof postmodernism which tend to result in an abstract depoliticized and ahis-torical notion of ldquodifferencerdquo or in effect a masked ldquoindifferencerdquo In this re-spect Homi Bhabharsquos clari cation of postcolonial hybridity as based on anagonistic relationship rather than a seamless fusion offers a workable model foran ethics as well as an aesthetics of cross-cultural engagement

Hybrid hyphenations emphasise the incommensurable elements [] as thebasis of cultural identi cations What is at issue is the performative natureof differential identities the regulation and negotiation of those spaces thatare continually contingently ldquoopening outrdquo remaking the boundariesexposing the limits of any claim to a singular or autonomous sign of dif-ferencemdashbe it class gender or race Such assignations of social differ-encesmdashwhere difference is neither One nor the Other but something elsebesides in-betweenmdash nd their agency in [] an interstitial future thatemerges in between the claims of the past and the needs of the present(1994219)

The kind of hyphenated hybridity that Bhabha outlines is already within theconceptual reach of interculturalism It is now time for a more sustained andsystematic engagement with the politics of its production

Notes

1 ldquoAgencyrdquo refers here to the potential to act or perform an action autonomously it registersdegrees of power and knowledge combined since to act autonomously is to understand theideological systems in which one is imbricated

2 For an extended discussion of multiculturalism in Canada Australia and the United Statessee Gunew (199351ndash65)

3 See Bennett (1996144ndash47) for examples of small ldquomrdquo multicultural theatre in which blind-cast productions of Shakespearersquos The Tempest unwittingly reproduced dominant culturalvalues

4 Guillermo Gomez-Pena critiques a similar model of intercultural encounter in his conceptof ldquocorporaterdquo or ldquotransnationalrdquo multiculturalism which he argues characterizes manybusiness and media conglomeratesrsquo current interest in difference Such difference performsthe ldquopassive roles of glossy images and exotic backgroundrdquo and real diversity is ldquo attenedand equalized by high production valuesrdquo (200112)

5 Examples of big ldquoMrdquo multicultural theatre include various projects done by El Teatro Cam-pesino (US) Talawa (Britain) Doppio Teatro and Urban Theatre Projects (Australia) andCahoots Theatre Projects (Canada) Of course there have been numerous projects (espe-cially in non-Western countries) that t within our de nition of multicultural theatre al-though the speci c practitioners involved may not identify their work in this way Examplesinclude projects by Five Arts Centre (Malaysia) William Kentridge and the HandspringPuppet Company (South Africa) Rustom Bharucha (India) and Gomez-Pena (USAMexico)

6 Our identi cation of ghetto and migrant theatres is in uenced by Richard Fotheringhamrsquoswork ([1987] 1992197ndash98)

7 For further explication of community theatre see Baz Kershaw (1992)

50 LoGilbert

8 For some time postcolonial theatre has been well theorized as a conceptual category albeita contested one however in-depth engagement with postcolonialism has been conspicu-ously absent from discussions of cross-cultural performance work in journals such as TDRSimilarly Patrice Pavisrsquos introduction to The Intercultural Performance Reader (1996) virtuallydismisses the eld of postcolonial theatre even though some of the bookrsquos contents clearly t within this grouping

9 Wole Soyinka Derek Walcott and Girish Karnad are the most prominent of a very largeand diverse group of dramatists who might be catagorized as ldquopostcolonialrdquo Well-knownindigenous theatre groups in countries permanently colonized by European powers includeKooemba Jdarra (Australia) Taki Rua Productions (New Zealand) Spiderwoman (USA) andNative Earth Performing Arts (Canada) See Gilbert and Tompkins (1996) for an extendedaccount of the eld

10 See the introduction to Christopher Balmersquos book Decolonizing the Stage Theatrical Syncre-tism and Post-Colonial Drama (1999) for an extended history of the conceptual category ofsyncretic theatre Balme has been the key theorist of this form of cross-cultural performancefor several years though he initially assessed its overarching function as cultural rapproche-ment rather than decolonization andor resistance

11 His notable theatre projects include Tooth of Crime (1973) Mother Courage (1975) The Pro-metheus Project (1983ndash85) and Three Sisters (1995ndash97)

12 The Tales from South Asia project as documented by Sharon Grady and Phillip Zarilli (1994)exhibits most of the features of the collaborative model The stated aims of the projectrsquosinitiators were to

develop a strategy of presentation and representation which engages an audienceandor students in ldquodifferencerdquo without stereotyping essentializing romanticizingthe ldquoother and keeping onersquos audience aware of contestation as a social realityrdquo(Grady and Zarilli 1994169)

13 Similar celebratory responses can be found in Williams (1992) and Wilshire and Wilshire(1989)

14 This position has been described elsewhere as ldquohappy hybridityrdquo (see Lo 2000)15 Schechnerrsquos 1989 article ldquoIntercultural Themesrdquo maps his thinking on the subject up to

the end of the 1980s see his 1996 interview with Pavis for a more recent account16 On a similar note Craig Latrell recently argued for a more complex reading of intercultural

exchange beyond the ldquovictim-victimizer narrativerdquo The non-Western cultures should notbe perceived as passive receivers of Western ideas but rather active manipulators of suchin uences (200045ndash46) His analysis of the speci city of theatrical agency is howeverweakened by the lack of attention to historical speci city and particularly the impact ofcolonialism in Singapore and Indonesia

17 For detailed explanation see Pavis (19924ndash20)18 Pavis adheres to the idea of turning the hourglass over for other perspectives but unlike

his earlier theorization which advocated the reversal as a way for the source culture tomonitor its own process of exchange the latest discussion appears to consolidate the primacyof the dominant culture

At the end of the process when spectators feel themselves buried alive under thesand of signs and symbols they have no other salvation than to give up and turn thehourglass upside down Then the perspective inverts and one must reverse andrelativize the sediments accumulated in the receiving culture and judge them fromthe point of view of alterity and relativity (199618)

19 For a fuller account of various modes of hybridity see Lo (2000152ndash55)20 See Gilbert (199813ndash25) for a more detailed discussion of the ways in which postcolonial

theory can be used to interpret ideological aspects of performance

References

Ambush Benny Sato1989 ldquoPluralism to the Bonerdquo American Theatre 615

Cross-Cultural Theatre Praxis 51

Ang Ien and John Stratton1994 ldquoMulticultural Imagined Communities Cultural Difference and National Iden-

tity in Australia and the USArdquo Continuum The Australian Journal of Media andCulture 8 2124ndash58

Ashcroft Bill Gareth Grif ths and Helen Tif n eds1995 The Post-Colonial Studies Reader London Routledge

Balme Christopher1999 Decolonizing the Stage Theatrical Syncretism and Post-Colonial Drama Oxford Ox-

ford University Press

Barba Eugenio1996 ldquoEurasian Theatrerdquo In The Intercultural Performance Reader edited by Patrice Pav-

ice 217ndash22 London Routledge

Bennett Susan1996 Performing Nostalgia Shifting Shakespeare and the ContemporaryPast LondonRout-

ledge

Bhabha Homi1994 The Location of Culture London Routledge

Bharucha Rustom1993 Theatre and the World Performance and the Politics of Culture London Routledge2000 The Politics of Cultural Practice Thinking through Theatre in an Age of Globalisation

London Athlone Press

Brandon James1990 ldquoContemporary Japanese Theatre Interculturalism and Intraculturalismrdquo In The

Dramatic Touch of Difference Theatre Own and Foreign edited by Erika Fischer-Lichte Michael Gissenwehrer and Josephine Riley 89ndash97 Tubingen Narr

Brown John Russell1998 ldquoTheatrical Pillage in Asia Redirecting the Intercultural Traf crdquo New Theatre

Quarterly 14 539ndash19

Carlson Marvin1990 ldquoPeter Brookrsquos The Mahabharata and Ariane Mnouchkinersquos LrsquoIndiade as Ex-

amples of Contemporary Cross-cultural Theatrerdquo In The Dramatic Touch of Dif-ference Theatre Own and Foreign edited by Erika Fischer-Lichte Michael Gissen-wehrer and Josephine Riley 49ndash56 Tubingen Narr

Carter David1986 ldquoThe Natives Are Getting Restless Nationalism Multiculturalism and Migrant

Writingrdquo Island Magazine 25263ndash8

Chin Daryl1991 ldquoInterculturalism Postmodernism Pluralismrdquo In Interculturalism and Performance

Writings from PAJ edited by Bonnie Marranca and Gautam Dasgupta 83ndash95New York PAJ Publications

Clifford James1994 ldquoDiasporasrdquo Cultural Anthropology 9 3 302ndash38

Dasgupta Gautam1991 ldquoThe Mahabharata Peter Brookrsquos Orientalismrdquo In Interculturalism and Perfor-

mance Writings from PAJ edited by Bonnie Marranca and Gautam Dasgupta 75ndash82 New York PAJ Publications

De Reuck Jenny2000 ldquolsquoThe mirror shattered into tiny piecesrsquo Reading Gender and Culture in the

Japan Foundation Asia Centrersquos LEARrdquo Intersections Online Asian Studies Journal3 6 httpwwwsshemurdocheduauintersectionsissue3jenny3html (12January 2001)

50 LoGilbert

8 For some time postcolonial theatre has been well theorized as a conceptual category albeita contested one however in-depth engagement with postcolonialism has been conspicu-ously absent from discussions of cross-cultural performance work in journals such as TDRSimilarly Patrice Pavisrsquos introduction to The Intercultural Performance Reader (1996) virtuallydismisses the eld of postcolonial theatre even though some of the bookrsquos contents clearly t within this grouping

9 Wole Soyinka Derek Walcott and Girish Karnad are the most prominent of a very largeand diverse group of dramatists who might be catagorized as ldquopostcolonialrdquo Well-knownindigenous theatre groups in countries permanently colonized by European powers includeKooemba Jdarra (Australia) Taki Rua Productions (New Zealand) Spiderwoman (USA) andNative Earth Performing Arts (Canada) See Gilbert and Tompkins (1996) for an extendedaccount of the eld

10 See the introduction to Christopher Balmersquos book Decolonizing the Stage Theatrical Syncre-tism and Post-Colonial Drama (1999) for an extended history of the conceptual category ofsyncretic theatre Balme has been the key theorist of this form of cross-cultural performancefor several years though he initially assessed its overarching function as cultural rapproche-ment rather than decolonization andor resistance

11 His notable theatre projects include Tooth of Crime (1973) Mother Courage (1975) The Pro-metheus Project (1983ndash85) and Three Sisters (1995ndash97)

12 The Tales from South Asia project as documented by Sharon Grady and Phillip Zarilli (1994)exhibits most of the features of the collaborative model The stated aims of the projectrsquosinitiators were to

develop a strategy of presentation and representation which engages an audienceandor students in ldquodifferencerdquo without stereotyping essentializing romanticizingthe ldquoother and keeping onersquos audience aware of contestation as a social realityrdquo(Grady and Zarilli 1994169)

13 Similar celebratory responses can be found in Williams (1992) and Wilshire and Wilshire(1989)

14 This position has been described elsewhere as ldquohappy hybridityrdquo (see Lo 2000)15 Schechnerrsquos 1989 article ldquoIntercultural Themesrdquo maps his thinking on the subject up to

the end of the 1980s see his 1996 interview with Pavis for a more recent account16 On a similar note Craig Latrell recently argued for a more complex reading of intercultural

exchange beyond the ldquovictim-victimizer narrativerdquo The non-Western cultures should notbe perceived as passive receivers of Western ideas but rather active manipulators of suchin uences (200045ndash46) His analysis of the speci city of theatrical agency is howeverweakened by the lack of attention to historical speci city and particularly the impact ofcolonialism in Singapore and Indonesia

17 For detailed explanation see Pavis (19924ndash20)18 Pavis adheres to the idea of turning the hourglass over for other perspectives but unlike

his earlier theorization which advocated the reversal as a way for the source culture tomonitor its own process of exchange the latest discussion appears to consolidate the primacyof the dominant culture

At the end of the process when spectators feel themselves buried alive under thesand of signs and symbols they have no other salvation than to give up and turn thehourglass upside down Then the perspective inverts and one must reverse andrelativize the sediments accumulated in the receiving culture and judge them fromthe point of view of alterity and relativity (199618)

19 For a fuller account of various modes of hybridity see Lo (2000152ndash55)20 See Gilbert (199813ndash25) for a more detailed discussion of the ways in which postcolonial

theory can be used to interpret ideological aspects of performance

References

Ambush Benny Sato1989 ldquoPluralism to the Bonerdquo American Theatre 615

Cross-Cultural Theatre Praxis 51

Ang Ien and John Stratton1994 ldquoMulticultural Imagined Communities Cultural Difference and National Iden-

tity in Australia and the USArdquo Continuum The Australian Journal of Media andCulture 8 2124ndash58

Ashcroft Bill Gareth Grif ths and Helen Tif n eds1995 The Post-Colonial Studies Reader London Routledge

Balme Christopher1999 Decolonizing the Stage Theatrical Syncretism and Post-Colonial Drama Oxford Ox-

ford University Press

Barba Eugenio1996 ldquoEurasian Theatrerdquo In The Intercultural Performance Reader edited by Patrice Pav-

ice 217ndash22 London Routledge

Bennett Susan1996 Performing Nostalgia Shifting Shakespeare and the ContemporaryPast LondonRout-

ledge

Bhabha Homi1994 The Location of Culture London Routledge

Bharucha Rustom1993 Theatre and the World Performance and the Politics of Culture London Routledge2000 The Politics of Cultural Practice Thinking through Theatre in an Age of Globalisation

London Athlone Press

Brandon James1990 ldquoContemporary Japanese Theatre Interculturalism and Intraculturalismrdquo In The

Dramatic Touch of Difference Theatre Own and Foreign edited by Erika Fischer-Lichte Michael Gissenwehrer and Josephine Riley 89ndash97 Tubingen Narr

Brown John Russell1998 ldquoTheatrical Pillage in Asia Redirecting the Intercultural Traf crdquo New Theatre

Quarterly 14 539ndash19

Carlson Marvin1990 ldquoPeter Brookrsquos The Mahabharata and Ariane Mnouchkinersquos LrsquoIndiade as Ex-

amples of Contemporary Cross-cultural Theatrerdquo In The Dramatic Touch of Dif-ference Theatre Own and Foreign edited by Erika Fischer-Lichte Michael Gissen-wehrer and Josephine Riley 49ndash56 Tubingen Narr

Carter David1986 ldquoThe Natives Are Getting Restless Nationalism Multiculturalism and Migrant

Writingrdquo Island Magazine 25263ndash8

Chin Daryl1991 ldquoInterculturalism Postmodernism Pluralismrdquo In Interculturalism and Performance

Writings from PAJ edited by Bonnie Marranca and Gautam Dasgupta 83ndash95New York PAJ Publications

Clifford James1994 ldquoDiasporasrdquo Cultural Anthropology 9 3 302ndash38

Dasgupta Gautam1991 ldquoThe Mahabharata Peter Brookrsquos Orientalismrdquo In Interculturalism and Perfor-

mance Writings from PAJ edited by Bonnie Marranca and Gautam Dasgupta 75ndash82 New York PAJ Publications

De Reuck Jenny2000 ldquolsquoThe mirror shattered into tiny piecesrsquo Reading Gender and Culture in the

Japan Foundation Asia Centrersquos LEARrdquo Intersections Online Asian Studies Journal3 6 httpwwwsshemurdocheduauintersectionsissue3jenny3html (12January 2001)

Cross-Cultural Theatre Praxis 51

Ang Ien and John Stratton1994 ldquoMulticultural Imagined Communities Cultural Difference and National Iden-

tity in Australia and the USArdquo Continuum The Australian Journal of Media andCulture 8 2124ndash58

Ashcroft Bill Gareth Grif ths and Helen Tif n eds1995 The Post-Colonial Studies Reader London Routledge

Balme Christopher1999 Decolonizing the Stage Theatrical Syncretism and Post-Colonial Drama Oxford Ox-

ford University Press

Barba Eugenio1996 ldquoEurasian Theatrerdquo In The Intercultural Performance Reader edited by Patrice Pav-

ice 217ndash22 London Routledge

Bennett Susan1996 Performing Nostalgia Shifting Shakespeare and the ContemporaryPast LondonRout-

ledge

Bhabha Homi1994 The Location of Culture London Routledge

Bharucha Rustom1993 Theatre and the World Performance and the Politics of Culture London Routledge2000 The Politics of Cultural Practice Thinking through Theatre in an Age of Globalisation

London Athlone Press

Brandon James1990 ldquoContemporary Japanese Theatre Interculturalism and Intraculturalismrdquo In The

Dramatic Touch of Difference Theatre Own and Foreign edited by Erika Fischer-Lichte Michael Gissenwehrer and Josephine Riley 89ndash97 Tubingen Narr

Brown John Russell1998 ldquoTheatrical Pillage in Asia Redirecting the Intercultural Traf crdquo New Theatre

Quarterly 14 539ndash19

Carlson Marvin1990 ldquoPeter Brookrsquos The Mahabharata and Ariane Mnouchkinersquos LrsquoIndiade as Ex-

amples of Contemporary Cross-cultural Theatrerdquo In The Dramatic Touch of Dif-ference Theatre Own and Foreign edited by Erika Fischer-Lichte Michael Gissen-wehrer and Josephine Riley 49ndash56 Tubingen Narr

Carter David1986 ldquoThe Natives Are Getting Restless Nationalism Multiculturalism and Migrant

Writingrdquo Island Magazine 25263ndash8

Chin Daryl1991 ldquoInterculturalism Postmodernism Pluralismrdquo In Interculturalism and Performance

Writings from PAJ edited by Bonnie Marranca and Gautam Dasgupta 83ndash95New York PAJ Publications

Clifford James1994 ldquoDiasporasrdquo Cultural Anthropology 9 3 302ndash38

Dasgupta Gautam1991 ldquoThe Mahabharata Peter Brookrsquos Orientalismrdquo In Interculturalism and Perfor-

mance Writings from PAJ edited by Bonnie Marranca and Gautam Dasgupta 75ndash82 New York PAJ Publications

De Reuck Jenny2000 ldquolsquoThe mirror shattered into tiny piecesrsquo Reading Gender and Culture in the

Japan Foundation Asia Centrersquos LEARrdquo Intersections Online Asian Studies Journal3 6 httpwwwsshemurdocheduauintersectionsissue3jenny3html (12January 2001)

52 LoGilbert

Dollimore Jonathan1991 Sexual Dissidence Augustine to Wilde Freud to Foucault Oxford Clarendon

Fischer-Lichte Erika1997 The Show and the Gaze of Theatre A European Perspective Iowa City University

of Iowa Press

Fotheringham Richard ed1992 [1987] Community Theatre in Australia Second Edition Sydney Currency Press

Gilbert Helen1998 Sightlines Race Gender and Nation in Contemporary Australian Theatre Ann Arbor

University of Michigan Press

Gilbert Helen and Joanne Tompkins1996 Post-colonial Drama Theory Practice Politics London Routledge

Gomez-Pena Guillermo1991 ldquoThe New Global Culture Somewhere between Corporate Multiculturalism

and the Mainstream Bizarre (a border perspective)rdquo TDR 45 1 (T169)7ndash301993 Warrior for Gringostroika Essays Performance Texts and Poetry Minneapolis Gray-

wolf Press1996 The New World Border Prophecies Poems and Loqueras for the End of the Century

San Francisco City Lights

Grady Sharon A and Phillip B Zarrilli1994 ldquo lsquoit was like a play in a play in a playrsquo Tales from South Asia in an Intercultural

Productionrdquo TDR 38 3 (T143)168ndash84

Grehan Helena2000 ldquoPerformed Promiscuities Interpreting Interculturalism in the Japan Founda-

tion Asia Centrersquos LEARrdquo Intersections Online Asian Studies Journal 3 6 httpwwwsshemurdocheduauintersectionsissue3grehanhtml (12 January 2001)

Grif ths Gareth1994 ldquoThe Myth of Authenticity Representation Discourse and Social Practicerdquo In

De-scribing Empire Post-colonialism and Textuality edited by Chris Tif n and AlanLawson 70ndash85 London Routledge

Grosz Elizabeth1990 ldquoInscriptions and Body-Maps Representation and the Corporealrdquo In Feminine

Masculine and Representation edited by Terry Threadgoldand AnnCranny-Francis62ndash74 SydneyAllen and Unwin

Gunew Sneja1993 ldquoMulticultural Multiplicities US Canada Australiardquo In Cultural StudiesPluralism

and Theory edited by David Bennett 51ndash65 MelbourneDepartment of EnglishMelbourne University

Holledge Julie and Joanne Tompkins2000 Womenrsquos Intercultural Performance London Routledge

Kershaw Baz1992 The Politics of Performance London Routledge

Latrell Craig2000 ldquoAfter Appropriationrdquo TDR 44 4(T168)44ndash55

Lo Jacqueline2000 ldquoBeyond Happy Hybridity Performing Asian-Australian Identitiesrdquo In Alter

Asians Asian-Australian Identities in Art Media and Popular Culture edited by IenAng Sharon Chalmers Lisa Law and MandyThomas 152ndash68AnnandaleNSWPluto Press

Low Gail Ching-Liang1989 ldquoWhite SkinsBlack Masks The Pleasures and Politics of Imperialismrdquo New For-

mations 983ndash103

Cross-Cultural Theatre Praxis 53

Niranjana Tejaswine1992 Siting Translation History Post-Structuralism and the Colonialist Context Berkeley

University of California Press

Pavis Patrice1992 Theatre at the Crossroads of Culture London Routledge1996 ldquoIntroduction Towards a Theory of Interculturalism and Theatrerdquo In The Intercul-

tural Performance Reader edited by Patrice Pavis 1ndash19 London Routledge

SchechnerRichard1982 The End of Humanism New York PAJ Publications1989 ldquoIntercultural Themesrdquo Performing Arts Journal 3334151ndash621991 ldquoMulticultural Illusionsrdquo Unpublished manuscript1996 ldquoInterculturalism and the Culture of Choice Richard Schechner Interviewed by

Patrice Pavisrdquo In The Intercultural Performance Reader edited by Patrice Pavis 41ndash50 LondonRoutledge

Shevtsova Maria1997 ldquoInterculturalism Aestheticism Orientalism Starting from Peter Brookrsquos Mahab-

haratardquo Theatre Research International22 298ndash104

Slemon Stephen1989 ldquoModernismrsquos Last Postrdquo Ariel 20 43ndash171990 ldquoUnsettling the Empire Resistance Theory for the Second Worldrdquo World Litera-

ture Written in English 30 230ndash41

Taylor Diana1991 ldquoTransculturating Transculturationrdquo In Interculturalism and Performance Writings

from PAJ edited by Bonnie Marranca and Gautam Dasgupta 60ndash74 New YorkPAJ Publications

Watt David1991 ldquoInterrogating lsquoCommunityrsquo Social Welfare Versus Cultural Democracyrdquo In

Community and the Arts edited by V Binns 55ndash66 Sydney Pluto Press

Williams David1992 Peter Brook and the Mahabharata London Routledge

Wilshire Bruce and Donna Wilshire1989 ldquoTheatre and the Retrieval of the Pregnant Goddess as a Paradigm of What Is Hu-

man or Ultimate Interculturalismrdquo Performing Arts Journal333422ndash35

Young Robert1995 Colonial Desire Hybridity in Theory Culture and Race London Routledge

Jacqueline Lo lectures at the School of Humanities at the Australian National UniversityAt present she is a Postdoctoral Fellow at the Centre for Cross-Cultural Research ANUHer publications include essays on Malaysian and Singaporean theatre Asian-Australiancultural politics and postcolonial theory She is Editor of Theatre in South-East Asia(1994) Writing Home Chinese-Australian Perspectives (2000) and Coeditor ofImpossible Selves Cultural Readings of Identity (1999) and Diaspora NegotiatingAsian-Australia (2000) Her book Staging Nation English Language Theatre inMalaysia and Singapore is forthcoming from Allen amp Unwin in 2003 She is currentlyworking on a book about cross-cultural Asian-Australian theatre with Helen Gilbert

Helen Gilbert teaches in drama and theatre studies at the University of Queenslandwhere she also directs experimental student performance work Her books include the award-winning Sightlines Race Gender and Nation in Contemporary Australian The-atre (1998) Post-Colonial Drama Theory Practice Politics (co-authored with JoanneTompkins 1996) She is the editor of the anthology Postcolonial Plays (2001)