Introduction

Abstract

Introduction Andrew Gibb (bio) In the places where the craft of theatre is taught as part of a college or university curriculum, requirements often include some exposure to the history of the field, whether offered through a designated course or sequence of courses, or in a more integrated fashion within classes intended to teach acting, design, directing, or any number of production-related skills. The intentions behind this requirement are frequently multiple, dependent on the unique mission of the institution and the population(s) it serves. One frequently expressed goal of history coursework is the fostering of a sense of artistic and professional community through the inculcation of what is conceived as a common genealogical narrative. Such an argument may be borrowed, consciously or not, from the rhetoric advanced to support the teaching of national history as a key component of primary and secondary education. In the case of theatre history instruction, a traditional practice (though by no means a universal one, and a habit that has been increasingly challenged in the last few decades) is to begin the assumed common narrative with the study of the drama and theatrical practice of fifth-century bce Athens. A statement frequently made by textbooks and instructors alike regarding performance in that place and time is that the ancient Athenians considered attendance at, or sponsorship of, theatrical festivals to be something akin to a civic duty—an activity that declared one’s citizenship.1 Perhaps this embrace of an origin story that places theatre at the center of civic discourse is the result of a sense of injustice, as theatre makers often believe that they are being treated as second-class citizens within the halls of academia. What better claim of relevance could be made than to [End Page 5] point out (however accurately or Eurocentrically) that theatre began in the cradle of democracy and philosophy? Despite the strategic usefulness of this particular historical claim, however, when the long arc of history is considered, are theatre folk truly justified in claiming a fundamental connection between theatre and citizenship? No doubt the editors of and contributors to this volume would answer that question affirmatively, though it is worth noting that our stance is likely dependent upon a broader definition of “citizenship” than might be endorsed by other academic or legal traditions. The call for the scholarly conference from which this publication emerged was circulated in the waning months of 2018, following a summer of urgent and emotional debate surrounding new US immigration policies regarding immigrant family separations, arguments fueled on one side by fears about the loss of social cohesion, and on the other by photographs of incarcerated children.2 Given the then-prevailing political atmosphere, the present editor anticipated that a good number of submissions might draw connections between the patterns, policies, and histories of immigration on the one hand, and theatrical or otherwise performance-centered expressions of citizenship, whether inclusive or exclusionary, on the other. In retrospect, what could have been foreseen is that theatre scholars, educators, and professionals would interpret recent events against a wider and more complex backdrop. The ultimate result of that initial call is the work you now hold in your hand, a collection of essays whose authors reach beyond simple definitions of citizenship as determined by documents and legal rights, and who engage in larger conversations about what citizenship can mean, and how such meanings are expressed through theatre and performance. Interestingly, while none of the authors published herein take up immigration as a central issue, they all make use of some combination of three particular analytical frameworks, all of which happen to be pertinent to the current immigrant experience and attempts to regulate it: bodies, institutions, and technologies. A focus on bodies in performance (whether the physical bodies of humans, animatronic figures, or puppets, or the less tangible examples of bodies of literary work or digitally embodied presences) represents in part a continuation of the rich conversation surrounding “Theatre and Embodiment” distilled by editor Sarah McCarroll into the publication of last year’s volume of Theatre Symposium. Institutions (here taking the form of theatres, schools, prize boards, and theme parks) have always been of interest...