In his study, Contemporary Latina/o Theater: Wrighting Ethnicity (Carbondale, Illinois; Southern Illinois UP, 2008), Jon D. Rossini discusses the three part task of theatre to write, right, and wright ethnicity. Specifically, he discusses contemporary Latina/o theatre artists and plays that take on the third task: wrighting ethnicity.
I appreciated the structure of this piece. I wrote in the margins "take note of structure for dissertating." But what was most fascinating and interesting to me was the structure in the web of argument, information, definition, and analysis that Rossini wove to set up his further analysis and and exploration of theatre. The model of wrighting--which calls up the idea of making--through theatre is submitted as the process of creating "a new framework that enables an audience to recognize not only the creation of aesthetic and emotional pleasure through theatrical art but also the creation of theoretical alternatives for thinking of and through ethnicity" (Rossini 20). In my personal aesthetic/artistic point of view, this is the most valuable of art forms--something that not only creates emotional pleasure but also intellectual pleasure--through learning and exploring ideas.
Rossini wrote "The intersection of identity politics and theater has made increasingly clear that the stage is an ideal space in which to explore a multiplicity of cultural identities, to understand new possibilities for cultural formation, and to draw attention to the continued tension in the embodiment of any given identity" (18-19). This is particularly helpful to me in formulating ideas with my dissertation: As I have previously laid out, I am interested in the transition between deployed and home. For military personnel, there is a home identity--civilian, and a war identity--soldier. Nancy Sherman writes about it in her book The Untold War: Inside the Hearts, Minds, and Souls of Our Soldiers (New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2010), "becoming a soldier is not just a social or sociological phenomenon. It is a psychological phenomenon, a deep psychological phenomenon . . . The idea of uniform, and a role, simply does not convey that weight" (20). The idea that Sherman is refuting is that being a soldier is an on/off switch, that like the uniform it comes off after work. The nature of the work is such that it affects the soldier's identity. There is a culture at war and a culture at home. Whether or not a soldier is injured (physically or mentally) while on active duty, he or she must contend with deeply contrasting identities and cultural systems--before and after, home and war. But the soldier is not the only one who must contend with this culture & identity clash. Just as Diana Taylor writes of the way most citizens were "not recognized as participants" in 9/11, even though we really were (243), Major John L. Todd points out in his article "The Meaning of Rehabilitation," that "the term rehabilitation should be used in a broader sense; rehabilitation includes not only sailors and soldiers but the whole community" (1). Just as Rossini notes about theatre's ability to explore multiple identities, models for cultural formation, and embodied identity in regards to wrighting ethnicity, I see a parallel for theatre's ability to do this for wrighting the homecoming soldier scenario. Current plays, like "Bengal Tiger at the Baghdad Zoo" (Rajiv Joseph, 2009) and "Oorah" (Bekah Brunstetter, 2010), and movies, like "Return" (2011) tend to highlight the failure of soldiers and community to readjust to each other positively. The implied outcome of the scenario is pain, misunderstanding, negative sexual relations, and ultimately failure to reintegrate positively. Significantly, none of these pieces place the blame on the soldier or the community. Rather, in the interest of what Sherman describes as not writing "a political tract for or against a war" (1), anti-war sentiment seems to be expressed through a presentation of failed reintegration.
So a forward looking challenge, one that I'm currently hoping to tackle eventually (!!), is how to use theatre to wright the returning soldier scenario in order to facilitate and explore positive outcomes for this scenario by "explor[ing] a multiplicity of cultural identities"--soldier, civilian, waiting wife, etc--"understand[ing] new possibilities for cultural formation"--specifically in understanding how soldiers/civilians, war culture/home culture etc fit together or might be "200 ft tall and made of foam" (divergent thinking)-- and "draw[ing] attention to the continued tension in the embodiment of" soldier/civilian identities.
<Insert celebratory "Yay!! Productive Blog!!" here>
Taylor, Diana. The Archive and the Repertoire: Performing Cultural Memory in the Americas. London; Duke UP, 2003.
Todd, John L. "The Meaning of Rehabilitation." Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science. Vol. 80; Rehabilitation of the Wounded (Nov., 1918), pp. 1-10. Web. 3 Jan 2012. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1013901
I appreciated the structure of this piece. I wrote in the margins "take note of structure for dissertating." But what was most fascinating and interesting to me was the structure in the web of argument, information, definition, and analysis that Rossini wove to set up his further analysis and and exploration of theatre. The model of wrighting--which calls up the idea of making--through theatre is submitted as the process of creating "a new framework that enables an audience to recognize not only the creation of aesthetic and emotional pleasure through theatrical art but also the creation of theoretical alternatives for thinking of and through ethnicity" (Rossini 20). In my personal aesthetic/artistic point of view, this is the most valuable of art forms--something that not only creates emotional pleasure but also intellectual pleasure--through learning and exploring ideas.
Rossini wrote "The intersection of identity politics and theater has made increasingly clear that the stage is an ideal space in which to explore a multiplicity of cultural identities, to understand new possibilities for cultural formation, and to draw attention to the continued tension in the embodiment of any given identity" (18-19). This is particularly helpful to me in formulating ideas with my dissertation: As I have previously laid out, I am interested in the transition between deployed and home. For military personnel, there is a home identity--civilian, and a war identity--soldier. Nancy Sherman writes about it in her book The Untold War: Inside the Hearts, Minds, and Souls of Our Soldiers (New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2010), "becoming a soldier is not just a social or sociological phenomenon. It is a psychological phenomenon, a deep psychological phenomenon . . . The idea of uniform, and a role, simply does not convey that weight" (20). The idea that Sherman is refuting is that being a soldier is an on/off switch, that like the uniform it comes off after work. The nature of the work is such that it affects the soldier's identity. There is a culture at war and a culture at home. Whether or not a soldier is injured (physically or mentally) while on active duty, he or she must contend with deeply contrasting identities and cultural systems--before and after, home and war. But the soldier is not the only one who must contend with this culture & identity clash. Just as Diana Taylor writes of the way most citizens were "not recognized as participants" in 9/11, even though we really were (243), Major John L. Todd points out in his article "The Meaning of Rehabilitation," that "the term rehabilitation should be used in a broader sense; rehabilitation includes not only sailors and soldiers but the whole community" (1). Just as Rossini notes about theatre's ability to explore multiple identities, models for cultural formation, and embodied identity in regards to wrighting ethnicity, I see a parallel for theatre's ability to do this for wrighting the homecoming soldier scenario. Current plays, like "Bengal Tiger at the Baghdad Zoo" (Rajiv Joseph, 2009) and "Oorah" (Bekah Brunstetter, 2010), and movies, like "Return" (2011) tend to highlight the failure of soldiers and community to readjust to each other positively. The implied outcome of the scenario is pain, misunderstanding, negative sexual relations, and ultimately failure to reintegrate positively. Significantly, none of these pieces place the blame on the soldier or the community. Rather, in the interest of what Sherman describes as not writing "a political tract for or against a war" (1), anti-war sentiment seems to be expressed through a presentation of failed reintegration.
So a forward looking challenge, one that I'm currently hoping to tackle eventually (!!), is how to use theatre to wright the returning soldier scenario in order to facilitate and explore positive outcomes for this scenario by "explor[ing] a multiplicity of cultural identities"--soldier, civilian, waiting wife, etc--"understand[ing] new possibilities for cultural formation"--specifically in understanding how soldiers/civilians, war culture/home culture etc fit together or might be "200 ft tall and made of foam" (divergent thinking)-- and "draw[ing] attention to the continued tension in the embodiment of" soldier/civilian identities.
<Insert celebratory "Yay!! Productive Blog!!" here>
Taylor, Diana. The Archive and the Repertoire: Performing Cultural Memory in the Americas. London; Duke UP, 2003.
Todd, John L. "The Meaning of Rehabilitation." Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science. Vol. 80; Rehabilitation of the Wounded (Nov., 1918), pp. 1-10. Web. 3 Jan 2012. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1013901
Do you think a soldier must become, in essence, an actor in the stage of the battlefield in order to cope with the violence and death and emotional stress of war? Does he become someone else when he enters that battlefield in order to be capable of doing things that him, as a man would not be capable of? If he does, how does he choose what to become and at what point does it become impossible for the soldier to tell apart the real him (or her) from the battlefield persona which has been created? I don't know that it works that way, but there has to be a coping mechanism for a man to be able to do things in war which he would never do in a civilian setting. Don't mind me, I'm probably mumbling way over my intellectual level here. Good piece!
ReplyDeleteI don't think it's as distant as "becoming an actor" makes it sound. But if you think about boot camp and the training a combatant goes through--they are becoming, adding to themselves, a new persona, a new way of thinking and interacting, a new set of codes (language, meaning, behavior) in order to do what they do. And yes, part of it is a coping mechanism so they can do what they do without losing it. I don't think I would say that a soldier "becomes someone else" because I think that denies the self that is active on the battlefield, ie. it connotes that the battlefield soldier is not as real or authentic or as valid as the home self: but the person on the battlefield is still "you" to say that it isn't just because the situation may have been awful and you may have done things that wound you or seen things, doesn't make that person less you--I think that is the crux of the problem. At home, we expect them to go back to how it was/who they were. Instead of recognizing that maybe the way we live isn't really all that realistic in a world where terrible things happen. =\
DeleteI'm not sure if that answers your question or just makes more, lol.
Thanks so much for the questions! =D They help me think and articulate ideas! Please don't stop asking. Great comment =D