Spinning Truth(s), Myths, Gossip, and Facts in the Theatre History Classroom

Abstract

Spinning Truth(s), Myths, Gossip, and Facts in the Theatre History Classroom Shawna Mefferd Kelty (bio) I know this may come as a surprise, but most theatre students do not become majors to learn about theatre history. Nor is this reality new. In 1994, Jerry Dickey and Judy Lee Oliva published a reassessment of theatre history survey courses, pointing out some obvious but nevertheless unchanging circumstances of our students: 1) they have had little-to-no exposure to theatre history prior to our courses, and 2) quite often we expect our students to write theatre history research papers, but do not actually teach our students how to conduct historical research (46–47). For decades, the challenge in theatre programs has been, and continues to be, engaging the student who "just wants to act" or the history major just wanting an easy arts elective. Dickey and Oliva offer some guiding principles, which include instructors creating "opportunities for students to conduct historical inquiry," giving "greater attention to historiography," and by creating "activities in which the students learn from each other" (52–54). They call for engaged pedagogical approaches that reframe theatre history away from content and toward historiography: What do we want our students to learn? Why do my students (who just want to act) need to know how to do this? Dickey and Oliva's questions remain pertinent. As a theatre historian, I find myself regularly teaching things my students never knew they wanted to know more about. It is my charge to help them draw connections between past and present practices, to highlight relationships between and across cultures, and to raise questions on how theatre responds to its sociopolitical climate and to interrogate how and why institutions favor some narratives over others. Through theatre histories both mainstream and marginalized, I try to cultivate their understanding of representation: whose story is told, how it is told, and who is telling it, both then and now. I teach in a small theatre department (about twenty-five majors) at a rural state college. We offer two theatre history courses, which are supplemented by dramatic literature courses. My classes typically have about ten students. Most are theatre majors, but there are also English, communications, and history students in both sections. Like many theatre history educators, I engage with students who represent a broad range of backgrounds and interests. My courses serve as both an introduction and an advanced requirement for our artist-scholars-in-training. How do I make theatre history matter to this diverse group? In my case, I reconstructed my course as an introduction to historiography and research skills. To emphasize these skills and to highlight how research into theatre history might apply beyond the classroom, I revamped my course assignments toward student leadership, research, and spin (how history gets told), with student-led discussions, "old school" archival research, and student-created podcasts. My pedagogical approach is disruptive—I think it is always good to risk, fail, trust, and risk again; learning to think critically in the classroom helps students think critically in the world. In this note from the field, I share a selection of assignments from my "Theatre History I" course that exemplify how I "spin" the course material to my small though diverse group. Through these assignments, I strive to engage students in the classroom and to make them "the experts in the room" when it comes to the theatre history, research, and the history of theatre on our campus. [End Page 195] In 1991, Thomas Postlewait argued that history is not fixed; rather, "[h]istory happens and re-happens, as we continue to reconstitute the past every time we comprehend it. We are always rewriting and rereading history" (178). The idea that history is continual, contextual, and interpretive is the basis of my approach to the course from the first day I express this approach to students as a formula: history equals evidence plus perspective divided by perspectives across time (H = E + P/PT). This equation, I explain, is not meant as literal math but as a conceptual model. I want my students to learn to ask questions, combining history with perspective, rather than simply accept scholars' interpretations...