Independence, Not Isolation
By Dudley Cocke
From "On Cultural Power"
American Theatre magazine
May/June, 1997
One of 13 commentaries
The broad culture issues encapsulated by August Wilsons and Robert
Brusteins running debate -- racial politics in the U.S. theater,
cultural power, and separatism versus integration, to name three -- have
been present since our forebears first dodged the Puritans and began putting
on dramas. This is the case whether the stage was set in 1821 at the African
Grove Theater on Mercer and Bleecker Streets in Manhattan, where a growing
community of free African Americans put on productions of Shakespeare
and original plays (including The Drama of King Shotoway,
which called for a slave rebellion), or at the rival Park Theater, a long-established
white venue in the same neighborhood. These culture issues persist, because
they are consequential for a democracy.
Folklorist Alan Lomax in his "Appeal for Cultural Equity" (Journal
of Communication, Spring 1977) states, "I say then that cultures
do not and never have flourished in isolation, but have flowered in sites
that guaranteed their independence and at the same time permitted unforced
acceptance of external influences." This is a much more realistic
formulation than either cultural separatism or cultural assimilation.
Lomaxs contention that the combination of interaction and independence
produces the best results for a culture applies as well for a people.
While we who are disenfranchised must persistently fight to gain a seat
at the table, we must also have some break from the battle, times to gather
and to be with ourselves. Such pauses give us a chance to let our guard
down: to celebrate who we are, to share our insecurities, and to ask candidly
whether we are in any way aiding and abetting the forces and individuals
against which and whom we are struggling.
If one considers the artist and audience relationship, Lomaxs argument
again holds: to achieve their best work, artists need both the engagement
of audiences who know down in their souls from what place the artistic
expression is coming, and the engagement of audiences who bring unknown
perspectives and unexpected energy to their interaction with the stage.
Its interesting to note that the audience for the aforementioned
African Grove Theater, as described in William Branchs Black
Thunder, an Anthology of Contemporary African-American Drama, was
racially mixed, although the theaters management found it necessary
to segregate whites, as some did not know "how to behave themselves
at entertainments designed for ladies and gentlemen of color."
In my theaters experience as a grantee, the Lila Wallace-Readers
Digest Funds theater initiative has been effective precisely because
it has focused both on broadening audiences and deepening the audience-artist
exchange. For Roadside Theater, whose work is drawn from the farming and
coalmining culture of its Appalachian home, the Wallace initiative enabled
us to connect with rural and working class audiences across the country,
reaching people the existing nonprofit touring and presenting mechanism
typically does not engage. As facts gathered in the Funds evaluation
project show, in 1995 Roadsides national audience was 65 percent
rural; 68 percent had annual incomes of less than $50,000 and half
of those folks earned less than $25,000 a year. Only two percent of our
audience earned more than $100,000 a year. This profile is almost the
inverse of the Broadway and regional theater audience. 100 million American
families have annual incomes of less than $50,000, and a large portion
of them, if Roadsides 20 years of touring experience is a reliable
gauge, are eager to participate in theater (and cultural production in
general) that connects with their hopes, joys, and tragedies.
Given our history, its not surprising that our national culture
dialog often takes the form of combats, as appears to be the case in the
Wilson-Brustein debate. But as Lomax and others have been arguing for
some time (for 16 perspectives, see Voices from the Battlefront, Achieving
Cultural Equity, Africa World Press, 1993), what consistently defeats
the discourse is our failure to uphold the fundamental principles of self-determination
and equitable treatment. If we embraced these principles, we would find
ourselves in a new conversation about our collective strength in the face
of developments which threaten us all.