A Good Reason to Stay Home
This month one of my jobs is to facilitate pre-show and post-show workshops for classes that are coming to see The Bluest Eye- Steppenwolf's adaptation of Morrison's Pulitzer-winning novel. Her language is rich with questions of love, identity, beauty and ugliness, the possibility and desirability of being "normal". Sounds pretty perfect for middle and high school students, doesn't it?
One of my workshops got cancelled because the principal at the school found out that the play dealt with incest and rape and this struck her as inappropriate for young people. Her argument (and I'm not sure why I'm shocked) was that there are probably kids in her school that are dealing with these issues in their personal life, and seeing the play might open up a can of worms that the school isn't' able to deal with.
Because, clearly, if a student is dealing with incest and rape, then they probably have a safe home environment to talk about these things and school is just not the place. The best idea is to just reinforce that these subjects are NOT OKAY for us to talk about. A little shame and secrecy never hurt anyone.
On a side note of programming theatre for young people: it turns out that comedy that kids find funny is more often than not threatening to adults (especially teachers). So if you don't want your students making farty noises and off-color puns all the way home on the bus, then don't take them to see a comedy show for your school field-trip.
It's either a sign that I'm growing up or that I'm definitely not, but I'm starting to think that if parents and teachers are a little uncomfortable with the content, then the artist might be doing something right.
posted by laurenj @ 9:53 AM
3 Comments:
I think I have to come to the defense of parents and teachers a bit here. Artists ae doing something right, but they are doing something wrong, too. If an artist pushes a kid to confront something painful that's definately valuable, but here's the rub: They leave. Who is responsible for picking up the pieces? If a parent chooses to expose their kids to something they have to pick up the pieces, and nobody can say boo about it unless what the parent exposes their child to is so detrimental that the child becomes a burden on the state. That's why child protectives services is so frustrating, and why it would be so miserable to work in that field. CPS isn't really protecting kids. They are protecting society from parents' bad choices, and they allow parents to make horrible decisions as long as the child is only damaged to such a degree that the parent and child alone bear the brunt of the consequences. They only intervene when it gets so bad that society decides it's gone beyond what the society will tolerate, not beyond what is bad for the child. Parents can get away with a lot. Teachers can get away with less because we have to pick up the pieces for nine months, but we have the firewall of parents who rightfully have oversight because they deal with the consequences more, and for longer. Principals actually can take even fewer risks because they are protecting the interests of kids, parents, and teachers. This creates increasing levels of risk-aversion. I can get away with more than you can, because I will be there when the kid is a mess the next day. The parent can get away with a lot more because they will be there for years to come. But you will run into a lot of brick walls because every time you ask to push a kid a little the principal knows you will be gone the next day, or week, or month, and the kid won't be freaking out on your watch anyway. That is certainly not to say that issues like rape and incest shouldn't be dealt with. I teach Oedipus (incest) and House on Mango Street (rape) to ninth graders every year. But the parents won't hold me responsible or the state adopted curriculem. They would hold the principal responsible, and rightfully so, if he exposed their kids to someone who would make their job harder without sticking around to help them clean up the fallout afterwards. I know this kind of thing will make your job more difficult (parents griping about my required reading and demanding alternative reading assignments create a lot of extra work for me) but cut these parties some slack. They have to pick up the pieces, so they have earned the right to choose the battles they want to fight.
I certainly think that parents and teachers have the right to monitor and make choices about what children see, my complaint was specifically about a principal who recognized that a dangerous and abusive situation could exist and went to the lengths of cancelling a field trip for fifty students in order to avoid a dialogue about it.
Additionally, one of art's many functions is to disturb and provoke the status quo. Especially when the status quo involves oppression and inequality. I can understand why sometimes it is better for teachers/parents to steer clear of these disruptions, but it irks me when teachers make wonderful claims about the benefits of arts education and then scurry in fear when they realize that it could include subversive elements.
One of my companies, presents an adaptation of "Mango Street." You should bring the kids. We have discounted seats for groups, so it might help balance out the plane tickets.
Umm, if you were ever in Chicago for the facilitation, you are so in trouble for not calling me. I work doown the freaking street from steppenwolf, and I just went to the pillowman there--thinking about seeing bluest eye, just haven't gotten around to it. Umm, I live in Chicago.
BTW, sweet job, and congrats on the puppet theatre thing.
Post a Comment
<< Home