Commissioned and published by IETM - International network for contemporary performing arts.
Notions of inclusion and diversity have been part of the discourse and actions of contemporary performing arts ever since I can remember. In the 1990’s the discourse amongst contemporary dance artists orbited around the physical body. We were concerned with the form, colour, size and ability of the bodies that were performing and making the art. The questions were about authentically representing the demographics of the societies the art is made in, with, for and about. In dance, changes happen very rapidly. Perhaps it is the ephemerality of the art form or the heritage of the early practices of dance as a medium for transcendence. We have ventured through modern dance, post-modern dance, contemporary dance, non-dance and post-dance within just forty years and we are still changing swiftly. Many of these phases of evolution have been direct responses to the social and political realities at the time and promoting burning issues in society. In many cases, an individual artist or a group of them would push the art form into a new realm in order to stay relevant in society and furthermore, often they aspired to trigger the public discourse and evoke fresh thinking about their realities.
Dance artists have been willing to question all that they know to be true only to catalyse the thinking and actions of the societies in which they operate. In Anna Helprin’s Dancers Workshop in San Fransisco, way back in the 1950’s, one could find dancers who belonged to marginalised groups of society. She didn’t work with them solely because of their cultural heritage, ethnicity or socio-economic status. She simply wanted to work with people and she knew, already then, that people are people are people…
In other words, dance might be a good case-study when addressing matters of diversity, inclusion, accessibility and equality.
However, in my experience, the processes of addressing these invaluable matters have been sterilised and hijacked by strategic language and bureaucratic procedures. Despite the topic being addressed in various ways and in different intensities over many decades, there is still much more work left to do. Despite many attempts and initiatives to bring change, we are still operating within a system which is bonded to neoliberal capitalism. Compartmentalisation is a marketing strategy in capitalism because the more divided the market is to different groups, the more products one manufactures with the claim to meet the specific needs of each particular group.
Additionally, segregation has been used as tool to gain power by many regimes throughout history. When a community is isolated and is not aware of what happens elsewhere it is easily manipulated and controlled. Knowledge is power and if those who rule hold more knowledge than the people then, it is clear who is in control.
Real changes happen when people gather around an ideology. A strong value that speaks volumes to the people, would change the way they think and sequentially, their behaviour.
Today, dark clouds of regression are hovering above us all. Governments all over the world are promoting ideas of segregation and division. They fuel ignorance and discrimination. Many politicians are using tactics of polarisation and demonisation in their campaigns. They talk more about how bad, cruel, evil and stupid their opponents are rather than promoting any coherent and structured ideologies or agendas of their own.
This behaviour infects other contexts. It seems humanity can gather around call for actions concerning the ecological crisis but fails to express solidarity towards other humans. Basic freedoms are confiscated from people in China, the Middle East, Africa, USA - Mexico boarder, Russia - Ukraine boarder as well as in so called western and privileged societies where neurodiverse, gender-diverse, body-diverse individuals are bullied, harassed and murdered on daily basis and many many many more examples. But we easily turn a blind eye and go on with our lives.
Many of us think that if we see queer individuals on mainstream television and we have a minister in our government who is a wheelchair user, we have arrived at a place of inclusion and diversity. But this could not be further from the truth. Just like other aspects of our reality, the marketing is surpassing the truth. The image that we are sold is that we have done a good job and we have learnt the lesson but in actuality we have not been able to spread a genuine ideology of compassion and solidarity. We are still segregated, divided, demonising and alienating.
I believe that language constructs realities. It frames our thoughts and delivers our ideas to other minds. The words we choose to describe our aspirations are crucial to the accuracy of their realisation. We live in fast-paced reality and within an infinite intellectual ocean that overflows us with information. Choosing the language with which we express ourselves is often a process of conformity and obedience. We more often than not choose the commonly accepted terms to discuss such large topics. Sequentially, these terms become content-less and meaning-less brands which perpetuate the existing power structures in our society.
I would like to suggest that it is crucial to invest the time and energy it takes to truly examine the language we use when promoting our ideas, if we really want to catalyse a change.
After years of conversations, publications and actions around the topic, IETM established the IDEA group. IDEA stands for Inclusion, Diversity, Equality and Accessibility. Whilst the intension is pure and the action is necessary, I believe that the language is perpetuating the same mechanism that led us to our current situation.
Inclusion suggests structural and political hierarchy. Someone is already at the desired place and invites others to also be included there.
Diversity is also suffering of inaccuracy and deficiencies by suggesting that there is one and only stream which just needs to be diversified.
Equality could also suggest oneness which is obscure. When using the term equality, one should be required to explain - equal in what? Equal in opportunities? Equal in value? Equal in reward? Equal in all?
Furthermore, we need to be more articulate and precise in order not to confuse equality with homogenising and standardising which inherently contradict the initial proposition.
Accessibility is of a different faucet because it address the need of decisions makers to acknowledge the entire demographics of a society and not a singular body, culture or community. I think accessibility should be treated as a political synonym to democracy. As long as we aspire to a democratic society, we aught to aspire to a fully accessible public spaces and services.
A quick comment about accessibility, we are far from fully embracing accessible practice in contemporary performing arts because the majority of opportunities for artists depend on writing abilities and skills which are extremely particular and therefore eradicate the option for many artists to access resources.
Also, in the globalised capitalistic economy, in order to make a living as an independent contemporary performing artist, one must be able and willing to fully submerge in the overwhelming reality of multi-tasking, overworking, burnout provoking race. Again, not something that is by nature accessible to many.
A few suggestions I would like to workshop as possible alternatives to the above terms are Pluralism, which speaks to the distribution of power in society and the legitimacy for minority groups to sustain authority and influence on the whole; Coexistence which suggests wholesome environment for each and every part of society without risking or jeopardising others’ freedom and without expressing any need for assimilation; Heterogenism (counter to common thinking, the word hetero refers to differences and otherness) this is a new word I created to try and speak about internal variety without referring to external criteria; and there is the good old Human Rights which can promote the right to access, the right to be included, the right to be free and unapologetic, the right to be one’s self, the right to influence one’s own environment, the right to have a voice that counts, the right to be seen by the people in power, the right to be in power, the right to express one’s opinions and the right to choose how much to engage in socio-political dynamics.
I wonder if we learned to want to be inclusive because it is something that is expected of us in the cultural sector and introduced via cultural policies that are constituted by the political party in power. Perhaps it is the words we use which are no longer relevant.
Even in IETM, there is a genuine desire to be meaningful and instrumental to a broad variety of organisations and individuals. But in practice the network can not really be completely open. I often think what will happen if some radical religious organisation would ask to join IETM but request that all members belonging to one sex cover themselves and not speak in public? Would IETM accept such demands for the sake of being “inclusive”?
I guess we all have got our limits.
We want to involve everybody because we might think that it would make us better people or reinforce the broad relevance of what we do. But I suspect that most of us will not be willing to give up all of our own freedoms in the process.
It is important that we ask ourselves whether we promote such ideas with genuine interest and sincere beliefs or we are being manipulated by trendy politics and as a result conform to the idea that more is better and therefore, contemporary performing arts like capitalism, must broaden our market (read audiences).
Real changes in behaviour depend on real changes in mindset and ideology. To change our thinking, we should change our language. What are the right words to describe what we are actually trying to do? Should we, artists, borrow the language from the policy makers or should we lead the way with new and alternative language?
Israel Aloni
info@israelaloni.com