Postmarginality: Ethical Relationality of Theatre Rehearsal Practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Postmarginality: Ethical Relationality of Theatre Rehearsal Practice \nPeter Farbridge \n \nAs debates about the under-representation of marginalized communities grow in North America, identity-centred perspectives have had a polarizing effect on cultural relations (Preciado; Couturier). In the Canadian theatre community, the ideals of artistic freedom in theatre creation conflict with the need to achieve meaningful progress in Equity, Diversity and Inclusion (EDI), and the results have proven painful for different communities (Gilbert; Martelly; Aguirre). New communication tools are required in theatre rehearsal practice to help negotiate between the welcome increase in the political representation and agency of marginalized artists and the ongoing need for creative liberty. With a cohort of ethnoculturally-diverse participants, I devised a one-hour performative inquiry (Fels) from excerpts of a written play and devised solo work from the participants. The objectives of the inquiry were threefold: (1) to explore how social norms driven by a ‘coloniality of power’ (Quijano and Ennis) manifest in the rehearsal process; (2) to examine if a posture of ethical relationality (Donald) can disrupt these social norms and lead to the rhizomatic connections of Tout-monde (Glissant) and Third Space (Donald; Ermine; Bhabha; Turnbull), and; finally (3) to evaluate if the psychophysical nature of theatre practice (Zarrilli) facilitates pathways towards intersubjectivity (Fuchs and Koch), empathy (Thompson), and generative dialogue (Scharmer). This project suggests that ethical relationality in theatre rehearsal practice would require less emphasis on hard-coded ethical approaches and embrace the dynamic, shifting nature of relationality in a way that generates spontaneous human agency and preserves the creative spirit of theatre practice.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.012 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.025 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".