MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4399398207 · doi:10.1353/tj.2024.a929532

In The Lurch: Verbatim Theater and the Crisis of Democratic Deliberation by Ryan Claycomb (review)

2024· article· en· W4399398207 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueTheatre Journal · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicTheatre and Performance Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDeliberationDemocracySociologyEpistemologyPsychologyAestheticsPolitical sciencePhilosophyLawPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Reviewed by: In The Lurch: Verbatim Theater and the Crisis of Democratic Deliberation by Ryan Claycomb Megan Lewis IN THE LURCH: VERBATIM THEATER AND THE CRISIS OF DEMOCRATIC DELIBERATION. By Ryan Claycomb. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2023; pp. 163. Academic discourse is predicated on novel contributions to fields of study and making arguments based on our expertise; scholars set out to prove our points and convince readers of their merits. Therefore, it is rare and enriching when an author engages in dialogue with past versions of their argument. Ryan Claycomb, whose area of expertise is verbatim theatre, takes himself on in this deftly argued book, asking if theatre in the liberal West is sufficient any longer in the face of "what feels like the possible end of democracy" (3). "I was ruined by Anna Deavere Smith," he writes in his championing of verbatim theatre, a form that "advance[s] a political vision of a utopian democratic public sphere" aimed at "inclusive and em-pathetic democracy." Once championing the form and its potential with "breathless hopefulness," from his position post-pandemic, he now reexamines the utopian promise of this form of theatre (3). He reflects on his own participation in the "fantasy" of its democratic potential against a global pandemic, an insurrection, two presidential impeachments, and reckoning with the United States' racist legacies. Claycomb traces three premises about documentary theatre in his argument: that these plays—"democratic dramaturgies," he calls them—stage an idealized space for democratic discourse; that such public spaces are often framed as utopian; and that utopias orient toward empathy. In chapter one, "Democratic Deliberation and the Theatricalized Public Sphere," Claycomb maps the characteristics of verbatim theatres that emerge from post-Cold War liberal democracies such as the US, UK, and Canada. These characteristics include emphases on inclusive voices, public opinion integrated into the work, the appearance of evenhanded neutrality around polarizing topics such as racism, and a commitment to open-ended narratives. Verbatim theatres repeatedly imagine themselves as "reparative events to create dialogue in response to violence" (35). This is evidenced by work about Matthew Shepard's murder in Laramie, Wyoming, the 1992 Los Angeles riots, or stories of teenage asylum-seekers created through Ping Chong's Undesirable Elements methodology. In the second chapter, "Debating in Utopia," Claycomb wrestles with the ways in which empty stages become spaces where we play out problems in places (such as Laramie, Wyoming in Tectonic's famous 2000 work, or the post-9/11 prison in Guantanamo: 'Honor Bound to Defend Freedom' by Victoria Brittain and Gillian Slovo, 2004). In his analysis of these two plays, Claycomb probes the tension between the intended utopian space of democratic deliberation promised, or imagined, by these plays and the harsh realities, decades later, of the continued homophobia and xenophobia these works were aimed to bring to light. "The utopian peg on which verbatim theater has hung its hopes," writes Claycomb, is the tethering of politics and affect: "to deliberating and feeling together in the phenomenal space of the theater" (51). In chapter 3, "Feeling Together," Claycomb explores connections between listening, empathy, and theatre. He historicizes the concept of empathy from the Reagan era to the contemporary political landscape, tracing the shift from the "liberal pluralist social vision" of, say, Tony Kushner's Angels in America (1991), Anna Deavere Smith's Fires in the Mirror (1992), or Tectonic's Laramie Project (2000), to the political limits of staging marginalized voices post-9/11 and post-COVID. Using Ping Chong's Children of War (2002) and Smith's Let Me Down Easy (2009) [End Page 125] as case studies, he traces a shift from a Habermasian public sphere of discourse in which "social ideas can and must be argued and adjudicated" to a Levinasian face-to-face encounter in which we are obligated toward one another through the encounter (1). The breakdown in our social obligations to one another is the subject of chapter 4, "The Opposite of Empathy Is Suspicion," where Claycomb explores the current cultural-political climate, which he says is "defined by critique, suspicion, paranoia, and antagonism" (95). He examines the challenges of verbatim theatre in the current zeitgeist through three...

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.821
Threshold uncertainty score0.669

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.228 · 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