MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2086288376 · doi:10.1353/tt.0.0004

Theatre for Living: The Art and Science of Community-Based Dialogue (review)

2008· article· en· W2086288376 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Kelly Howe

Bibliographic record

VenueTheatre topics · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicComplex Systems and Decision Making
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPraxisSubtitleMeaning (existential)SociologyPostmodern theatreDramaturgyAestheticsMedia studiesArtPostmodernismEpistemologyLiteraturePhilosophyLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Reviewed by: Theatre for Living: The Art and Science of Community-Based Dialogue Kelly Howe Theatre for Living: The Art and Science of Community-Based Dialogue. By David Diamond. Victoria, BC: Trafford Publishing, 2007; pp. 336. $26.04 paper. “The oppressed leader of the death squad” is a provocative subtitle of a section of David Diamond’s Theatre for Living: The Art and Science of Community-Based Dialogue. The subtitle’s collapsing of distinct boundaries between oppressor and oppressed exemplifies the complexity Diamond embraces throughout the book, which outlines his theatrical techniques (also called Theatre for Living) and the aspects of systems theory that inform them. Applied in workshops and community-based devising contexts, Theatre for Living combines adaptations of Augusto Boal’s Theatre of the Oppressed (TO) techniques with exercises Diamond has developed. Like systems theory, Diamond’s praxis assumes the concept of a network as the primary unit for understanding life. As system theorist Fritjof Capra explicates in Theatre for Living’s foreword: “In a social network, each communication creates thoughts and meaning, which give rise to further communications, and thus the entire network generates and regenerates itself” (16). Diamond uses performance to examine how such communication patterns—“feedback loops”—create the structures limiting what humans understand as possible (62). Proposing that clear divisions between oppressor and oppressed do not adequately account for how feedback loops make meaning, Theatre for Living as praxis shifts away from using oppressor/ oppressed language. The scenario inspiring the aforementioned subtitle arose during a Forum Theatre collaboration between Vancouver’s Headlines Theatre (where Diamond is artistic director) and workshop participants who had entered Canada as refugees. During the performance, Diamond offered an invitation similar to Boal’s traditional forum invitation: for any audience member to replace an oppressed character and rehearse strategies for transforming that character’s circumstances. To Diamond’s surprise, one participant stepped into the role of an especially antagonistic figure, the head of a Guatemalan death squad. The intervention catalyzed a shift in Diamond’s Boal-based work: “No one had ever asked to replace the death squad leader. . . . I could feel tensions in the cast rising” (66). The woman who intervened, however, speculatively historicized the character—and the violence and poverty that might have helped form him. Diamond notes that the intervention “didn’t excuse the actions of the men in the death squad” (67); instead, it encouraged Diamond to broaden his invitation: Theatre for Living invites spectators “to engage in the struggles of [any of] the characters . . . to create healthy community, or safety, or respect” (43). Diamond’s reflections about the death-squad scene are representative of his writing in two key ways: they recall an encounter with a collaborator who led him to rethink his own facilitation strategies, and they resist assuming a scene’s content relevant to its local context only. Throughout the book, Diamond argues that paying attention to feedback loops means recognizing global systems and local systems as mutually constitutive. He goes on to suggest that characters like the death-squad leader should concern not only people near the locations shaping their being and becoming, but everyone. Their actions are never to be condoned, but instead to be examined for insights about the interlocking networks that sustain them—networks in which, he implies, all global residents are implicated. Diamond is not the first person to explore limitations of oppressor/oppressed language; even Boal himself has complicated that language over time. Neither is Theatre for Living the first publication to explore relationships between TO and systems theory—several of which were raised, for example, by Warren Linds in “Metaxis: Dancing (in) the in-between,” in A Boal Companion: Dialogues on Theatre and Cultural Politics. Nonetheless, few people have approached these subjects so thoroughly and practically. Theatre for Living braids memoir and polemic with energetic evocations of Diamond’s techniques. Through workshop vignettes, in-depth case studies, and accessible, active description, he charts his (and Headlines’s) methodological metamorphoses, from agitprop, to more traditional TO, to Theatre for Living. Diamond insists that, in order to examine social networks, Theatre for Living plays “must contain as much of the complexity of real life as possible” (41). In...

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.557
Threshold uncertainty score0.715

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.213
GPT teacher head0.395
Teacher spread0.182 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTheatre topicsSame topicComplex Systems and Decision MakingFrench-language works237,207