Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Susan C. Haedicke
I headed toward the hallway created by a black carpet and black curtains.
Curtains or temporary walls formed all of the many spaces I would visit on my
99
100 Susan C. Haedicke
The number of refugees seeking asylum in the European Union (EU) has
more than quadrupled since 1985, and this rapid increase has encouraged a
climate of hostility and xenophobia in Europe toward immigrants (fig. 1). The
result has been a series of measures by the EU to control immigration. The
Schengen Agreement (initiated in 1985 and fully implemented in 1995) established
a single external border for immigration checks and a single set of rules regulating
immigration and asylum policies. The Dublin Convention (1990) and the
Amsterdam Treaty (1997) refined these initiatives and developed stricter criteria
for assessing refugee status in the EU countries. 2
These agreements and treaties seemed to mark only the start of significant
policy shifts as political parties espousing anti-immigration platforms gained in
popularity throughout the EU. In response, ten human rights organizations—
including CIRE, Amnesty International, AIDA (Association Internationale de
Défense des Artistes Victimes de la Répression dans le Monde), the French Red
Cross, the League of Human Rights, the Catholic Committee Against Hunger and
The Politics of Participation 101
F IG 1. The refugee camp in the Brussels production of Un Voyage Pas Comme Les Autres Sur Les
Chemins de l’Exil. Photo by the Comité Catholique Contre la Faim et Pour le Développement.
for Development, and La Cimade, under the patronage of the United Nations
High Commissioner for Refugees—partnered with the European Commission,
several French Ministries (i.e., Culture, Foreign Affairs, and National Education,
Research, and Technology), Libération, France Culture, Marianne, and various
non-profit organizations to produce Un Voyage Pas Comme Les Autres. Theatre
professionals (actors, directors, and designers) and refugees who had been
granted asylum in the EU joined forces with these organizations in the creation
of this pedagogic performance-based piece. Tickets were sold, but prices were
low (35 FF for individuals, less for students and groups—about $5 at the time).
Between 1998 and 2000, several cities in Europe, including Rome, Brussels,
Paris, Frankfurt, Hamburg, Rotterdam, and Luxembourg, hosted the participatory
theatrical event (called mise-en-situation by the organizers, literally translated
as “put in the situation”) for several months at a time. The Paris performances,
staged at Parc de la Villette, were given several times a day, five days a week
(Monday, Wednesday, Friday, Saturday, and Sunday), from November 12, 1998
to April 4, 1999. Small audiences of about twenty-five people entered the space
every twenty minutes, and the entire experience lasted one to one and a-half
hours.
The literally thousands of visitors to Voyage understood that this was not a
play to watch but an experience requiring participation. The press release that
appeared on October 19, 1998 stated:
102 Susan C. Haedicke
Each of the twelve refugee identities, described on the large placards from which
the spectator chose a persona, represented a composite of experiences and
memories garnered from actual refugees; none of the identities was a specific
real-life individual. Their “biographies” often combined the stories of two or
more refugees to create a form of historical fiction, but one that could represent
a documentary for the spectator. After the spectator was ethnically “marked”
with a colored dot and the journey on “the road to exile” had begun, s/he was
guided along the way, in part, by a series of instruction cards hidden in small
metal boxes attached to the walls of the performance space. These instructions
gave information like how the refugee traveled to and entered the EU and what
she did while waiting for a decision on her refugee status and after being granted
asylum (fig. 2). The instructions insured that each refugee’s journey through the
eleven “zones” the exposition was very different—zones that included the flight
from one’s homeland, the request for asylum, illegal work, the detention center,
and the outcome of the asylum request.
The spectator, at each stage of the journey as one of the refugees, was also
guided, intimidated, befriended, or exploited by the various people an exile
would meet along the way—soldiers, companions, bureaucrats, police, judges,
thieves. These roles were performed by professional and non-professional actors.
Many of these actors were actual refugees who had been granted asylum in the
EU. As a consequence, the lines between actor and audience blurred as the
spectator became the actor in a narrative that resembled, if not replicated in
various moments, the one lived in real life by many of the actual actors. The
actors who were actual refugees were, in turn, given the opportunity to
experience the “refugee problem” from the other side. (The term “actor” will
apply to all these individuals performing the people who guided the spectator-
refugee at Voyage throughout the rest of the essay.) The production elicited a
variety of responses from the spectators (to whom I will refer interchangeably
as “participants” or “spect-actors,” as used by Augusto Boal). For many, such a
close-up view of the hardships faced by a refugee was a new and eye-opening
experience that they often recounted in the “livre d’or” (a notebook set up in
the lobby just outside the exit of the performance space and used to record
immediate reactions to the experience). Some participants wrote: “Thank you
for plunging me into the real life of an asylum seeker.” “What an unsettling
voyage, terrifying, but so compelling.” “It is truly an exposition ‘pas comme les
autres.’” “The whole world you created made us cry a lot. An unforgettable
experience.” For others, it offered a way to work through their personal memories
of exile. I spoke to a woman and her two sons after the production, and they
The Politics of Participation 103
F IG . 2. The passport office in the refugee’s country of origin, from the Brussels production. Photo
by the Comité Catholique Contre la Faim et Pour le Développement.
told me that this was the fifth time they had participated. As refugees themselves,
they wanted to “try on” each of the exiled identities on the placards to better
understand their own experience as asylum seekers in the EU.
To achieve these ends, Un Voyage Pas Comme Les Autres used audience
participation to firmly establish identification between the participant and the
assumed persona of the refugee psychologically and physically. This connection
was achieved as the participant embodied the experience of another within a
performance context. The spect-actors shed their own identities for that of a
refugee and created, through the choices they made in reaction to the situations
in which they found themselves, the narrative text of the life they inhabited.
This interactive exposition, radically different from representational theatre,
immediately engaged the spectator in an event in which multiple activities
produced a multiplicity of subjectivities, responses, and interpretations. These
various and varied responses overwhelmed a single privileged perspective, and
thus created an open, heteroglossic performance text rather than a single narrative
line. In fact, there were as many narratives as there were spect-actors since the
biography and instructions associated with each refugee identity provided the
scenario for an open narrative that was then completed by the reactions, words,
and feelings of the spect-actor.
Voyage also differed in significant ways from “living history” museums and
sites, like Fort Snelling in the Twin Cities in Minnesota or Old Williamsburg in
Virginia, where visitors retain their own identities and cross time to converse
with the first-person characters (performed by actors) who “live” in the time
period represented by these sites. Here, the visitors vicariously experience the
The Politics of Participation 105
past. At Voyage, on the other hand, the participants grafted the identities of
specific refugees onto their actual identities, a performance strategy that
influenced how they experienced the exposition by altering how they were
viewed and treated. Here they did not watch a documentary on the plight of the
refugee or interact with actors performing the refugees from the security of
their own identity. Instead the participants in Voyage lived the experience and
thus contributed to the construction of its documentation by creating new
memories for themselves from the very different perspective acquired by living,
however briefly, not as secure citizens, but as exiles unsure of their destinies.
The “documentation” was created by and encoded in the body of the participant,
not in a prescribed text. Rather than showing with news-like accuracy what the
refugee experienced, Voyage let the audience feel what it might be like to be a
refugee. Thus the production made porous the border between the recorded
history of actual experiences of real-life asylum seekers and new memories of
experiences actually felt by the participants, but which occurred only within the
theatrical frame. One visitor wrote in the “livre d’or,” “I was Tarik [Iraqi] for a
few short instants. I believed he would achieve his goal up to the last moment.
I had hope for him, hope for me . . . what a hard reality.” What is striking here
is the identification between the spect-actor and the role he adopted even after
he left the performance space.
The passageway opened into a large desolate space around which was
scattered debris like tires, wooden boxes, wire and wire cutters, rope, and old
clothing and boots. Here I read the first of the instruction cards hidden in a
small metal box labeled Wanmin, which was attached to the temporar y wall.
Mine revealed that I, Wanmin, took a series of flights and was able to enter
France through a small provincial airport without much trouble. It was when
I applied for asylum that my difficulties started. Other refugees that I spoke to
after the performance had long sojourns in a refugee camp or grueling
journeys overland from their homelands to Europe, sometimes crossing mine
fields.
The Politics of Participation 107
What was most disconcerting, however, was the way people spoke to me—
with impatience, irritation, and lack of respect. I speak French quite well, but
I was terrified that I would not understand, would not be able to make myself
clear, would be mocked. I realized how rarely I had experienced such
dismissive, even cruel, treatment.
When the “spectators” at Voyage stepped into the skin of the refugee, they
relinquished their roles as passive outside observers. Participation in the “voyage”
turned their spectating bodies into performing bodies—bodies that were
implicated in the actions of the adopted identities by performing the necessary
movements and responding to how they were perceived. So many moments in
Voyage pushed the experience into the body, as when the guard hit the outside
wall of the metal cell with his rifle. Holding the experience in the body was
intensified because spect-actors could not talk together during their voyage;
they could not diffuse the tension but had to experience it alone. In fact, not
only were spect-actors prevented from talking together, they were often in a
space alone. No one else was near when my necklace was taken or when I
crossed the debris-filled area representing the trip from China to France for
Wanmin. This physical isolation also forced the experience inside the body.
For Boal, the active participation of the audience replaces and negates the
negative impact of an empathic identification in which the “spectator assumes a
‘passive’ attitude, delegating his ability to act” (102). Empathy, he argues, is “the
most dangerous weapon in the entire arsenal of the theater and related arts
(movies and TV). Its mechanism (sometimes insidious) consists in the
juxtaposition of two people (one fictitious and another real), two universes,
making one of those two people (the real one, the spectator) surrender to the
other (the fictitious one, the character) his power of making decisions” (Boal
113). Participation, on the other hand, strives “to change people—‘spectators,’
passive beings in the theatrical phenomenon—into subjects, into actors,
transformers of the dramatic action” (Boal 122). For Boal, what is essential here
is the performing body: “No matter that the action is fictional; what matters is
that it is action!” (122). Going through the action with one’s body gives a reality
to that action: though the situation might be fictional, the act itself is real. Standing
in line in the adopted persona of a refugee makes one’s back hurt just as much
as standing in line as oneself: “What is remembered in the body is well
remembered” (Scarry, Body in Pain 152).
The same technique was used by Jane Eliot, an elementary school teacher
in Iowa, who decided to teach her third graders a lesson in discrimination after
the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr.—a lesson documented in the film A
Class Divided. She divided her class according to eye color over a two-day
period. On the first day, the blue-eyed children were “superior” and so were
allowed extra recess time, second helpings at lunch, and other advantages, while
the brown-eyed children were “inferior” and so had to wear “collars,” which
looked like wide ribbons pinned loosely around their necks, and had all their
mistakes and shortcomings pointed out. On the second day, the positions of the
two groups were reversed. Eliot found that the children’s personalities changed
very quickly based on how they were perceived: they responded more to how
they were perceived than to how they saw themselves. In fact, how they saw
themselves became less secure. On the day that a young boy was wearing the
collar, he had to explain the cause of his belligerent behavior toward a boy
without a collar. He answered, “He’s better than me . . . well, not that.” Clearly,
his sense of self was slipping. This effect played out in test scores as well: the exact
same test resulted in unusually low scores for the children on the days that they
wearing the collars and unusually high scores on the days without the collars.
Like Eliot’s experiment, Voyage destabilized the individual’s identity to such an
extent that it became difficult to resist the infiltration of an alternative identity.
In one of the many interviews I had in the process of trying to gain asylum,
another Chinese, another Wanmin with a yellow dot on her forehead, joined me.
At first, I felt camaraderie—together we could beat the system—until I saw that the
officer preferred my answers. Only one of us would get through and I was tired
of waiting, tired of being moved from one bench to another. I found myself
playing up to the officer, competing with my fellow Chinese, and I got past that
post. My Wanmin was granted a temporary residence visa until my demand
for asylum could be examined. The other Wanmin was sent back to fill out more
forms. I had won—until I, Susan, realized what had just happened, what I had
participated in with such ease, such triumph. I had proudly played into the
hands of the bureaucrats, siding with those in power against a potential ally.
The Politics of Participation 111
I left the catacombs of tiny sterile offices for the “outside” world—an
anonymous European city. Here the temporary walls created a space that gave
the impression of narrow, winding alleyways and small, dingy shops. Another
Wanmin instruction card told me that after many days on the streets, I found
a very distant relative who agreed to give me a bed in the back room of her
laundry and spending money in return for long hours of work in the shop. I
entered the tiny space filled with an ironing board, a large table piled high
with clothing, a broom, a bucket and sponge, a washbasin and washboard,
and numerous other items. There was barely enough room to move. My first
job was to fold a pile of shirts. I was determined to do well. I worked ver y hard
to get to the bottom of the pile, but as I got to the last shirt, I discovered that it
was torn, stained, and glued to the table. My heart started to race as I hid it
under all the shirts I had so carefully folded. Yet again, the disconnection
between the reaction of my mind, reminding me that the participator y
performance would end soon, and the reactions of my body accepting my
experiences as real jarred me as it had so many times before in the hour I had
lived as Wanmin. I was sure that I would receive abuse for the ruined shirt,
but luckily for me, a new immigrant arrived, and a new pile of shirts was
thrown on the ones I had folded. I advanced to ironing and as I finished my
second shirt, I heard my boss berate the new Wanmin who had hurriedly and
carelessly folded the pile of shirts. “Why can’t you fold like her, the one before?”
as she pointed to me. I felt pride and a sense of superiority, accomplishment.
Here once more, the sudden awareness of the nature of those feelings startled
me. I, Susan, was experiencing a willingness to stand passively by, doing
nothing to alleviate another’s pain in order to ensure my own survival—I had
not even known I could feel that way and will never forget how easy it was to
adopt that stance.
Very soon, I was picked up, interrogated, and thrown into another
holding pen, this time surrounded by a chain link fence. I remember the police
officer who arrested me as being rough, as grabbing my arm and literally
112 Susan C. Haedicke
shoving me into the prison space so that I tripped. I know that did not actually
happen to me, Susan, since the actors never touched me, but my connection
with Wanmin was such by this time that my body remembered what I imagined
happening to her. I was alone in the relatively large and completely empty
space. I could see nothing outside the fence. Again, I waited, but not for long.
I, Wanmin, was sent back to China. As I, Susan, approached the exit to the
performance space, I confronted life-size posters of the twelve refugees again,
this time accompanied by the stories of their successes or failures to obtain
refugee status. Only two had been granted asylum.
I took off my yellow dot as I left the performance space, which for me
represented China and France and all the pain in between. I was exhausted
and very glad that my ordeal was over—I thought I could be just Susan again
in France legally. Once in the lobby, I sat for a minute with a cup of coffee.
Amazed, I realized that my entire “journey” lasted only one hour—I was sure
that I had been behind those black curtains for several. I was joined by a
woman whom I recognized as the one who took my necklace. She smiled and
asked if I wanted my necklace back. I almost felt guilty for saying yes. I told
her that she had been so real that she had scared me. “That’s because I met
that person,” she replied.
empowering its audiences to act for social justice by providing what Hall calls
an “oppositional code” so that spectators can rethink and re-vision immigration
policies from an “alternative framework of reference,” from the perspective of
someone fearing deportation and experiencing isolation and dislocation. The
production acts as a form of cultural intervention that encourages not only a
reassessment of the justice in granting asylum and a revised definition of who is
a “deserving” refugee, but also a re-evaluation of the ordinary citizen’s complicity
in sustaining a government policy that grants asylum to less than 20% of the
refugees.
Some other participants in Un Voyage Pas Comme Les Autres were not as
affected by the performance as I was. I think my intense involvement was caused
in part by language. I am not a native French speaker, so I did not know some
of the technical terms on the forms and the heavily accented French spoken by
the actors, who were actual refugees, was hard to understand. I often felt lost
since I was unsure if I had understood correctly, so the gap between the
disorientation I actually felt and the dislocation that the production strove to
make the character feel was narrowed by language. According to Silverman, the
reactions of others who seemed determined to remain outside the experience,
who tried to keep a safe distance from the deidealizing image forced on them
through the assumed persona, are more common than mine. Drawing on Franz
Fanon’s Black Skin, White Masks, she argues that it is impossible to get “inside”
a negative image. “When held by the cultural gaze to an identification with a
deidealizing image, the subject often experiences it as an external imposition”
and strives to reject it or to keep it separate from the moi (Silverman, Threshold
20). The performance strategy of Voyage, however, tries to deny the participant
any space either for one’s own “visual identity” or for a self-imposed distance
from the identity of the adopted role. Even for those who tried to keep their
distance, the experience of being seen and treated as an undesirable alien entered
their bodies.
The performing body is the source of efficacy in Voyage, but here it is the
identification, both physical and psychological, with what one is not—in fact,
an identification that is unpleasant and disconcerting since it is radically
deidealizing—that can result in attempts to affect social change. While in theatre
of the oppressed, the spect-actor experiences agency during the dramatic process,
in Voyage the spect-actor experiences the loss of agency and privilege, and the
memory of losing security, legitimacy, and home, and of being seen as “other”
is stored in her body. It is that embodied memory (as opposed to a rehearsal of
the action or a memory of role-playing) that has the potential to propel the
spect-actor to action after participation in the mise-en-situation. Boal writes
that “perhaps the theater is not revolutionary in itself; but have no doubts, it is
a rehearsal of revolution!”—a claim he makes several times in Theatre of the
Oppressed (155). Perhaps it is too much to assert that Un Voyage Pas Comme
Les Autres acts as a Boalian “rehearsal for revolution,” but to argue that it begins
to raise public awareness about government policies tightening restrictions for
immigration and to reverse public apathy about the plight of refugees is not. Yet
these changes occur slowly.
Yet to expect each spectator to alter his/her life course because of one
production is unrealistic and unfair as a criterion for evaluating its ability to
116 Susan C. Haedicke
affect social change. That does not mean, however, that the theatrical experience
lacked efficacy. In their work on postcolonialism, Ruth Frankenberg and Lata
Mani distinguish between “decisive” shifts and “definitive” shifts—political,
economic, and discursive—caused by decolonization. This distinction enables
the authors to acknowledge real changes in thinking and action (decisive shifts)
without claiming “a complete rupture in social, economic, and political relations
and forms of knowledge [definitive shifts]” (283). This distinction, I think, helps
explain the potential efficacy of Un Voyage Pas Comme Les Autres. Audience
participation allows the spectator to experience the situational and relational
nature of identity not in the realm of theoretical discussion, but in the body,
thus causing “decisive” shifts in attitude and understanding which can then be
translated into social action. Like the taste of Proust’s madeleine, that physical
memory remains, and it structures, whether through affirmation or denial or
dismissal, our attitudes toward immigration. Without a doubt, the yellow dot
remains on my forehead and although it is invisible to others, it continues to
influence how I see the other in me and myself in the other.
Notes
1. Throughout the essay, all translations of the published material (available on the Un
Voyage Pas Comme Les Autres websites), and words spoken during and after the
production are my own.
Works Cited
“Asylum Policy.” Europa: The European Union Online. 13 June 2001. 18 June 2001.
<http://europa.eu.int/scadplus/leg/en/lvb/133020.htm>.
Boal, Augusto. Theatre of the Oppressed. New York: Theatre Communications Group, 1985.
Bourdieu, Pierre. The State Nobility: Elite Schools in the Field of Power. Trans. Lauretta C.
Clough. Stanford: Stanford UP, 1996.
———, and J.-C. Passeron. Reproduction in Education, Society, and Culture. London:
Sage, 1977.
The Politics of Participation 117
Diamond, Elin. “The Violence of ‘We’: Politicizing Identification.” Critical Theory and
Performance. Ed. Janelle G. Reinelt and Joseph R. Roach. Ann Arbor: University of
Michigan Press, 1992. 390–98.
Europe: Variations of a Theme of Racism. Race and Class (Special Issue) 32.3 (1991).
Frankenberg, Ruth, and Lata Mani. “Crosscurrents, Crosstalk: Race, ‘Postcoloniality,’ and
the Politics of Location.” Displacement, Diaspora, and Geographies of Identity. Ed.
Smadar Lavie and Ted Swedenburg. Durham: Duke UP, 1996. 273–93.
“Free Movement of Persons within the European Union.” “Schengen Treaty Fully
Implemented Since July 1, 1995.” 18 June 2001. 24 May 2002. <euroinfo.ce.pt/info/
schengen.html>.
Freire, Paulo. Pedagogy of the Oppressed. Trans. Myra Bergman Ramos. New York:
Continuum, 1989.
Gross, Joan, David McMurray, and Ted Swedenburg. “Arab Noise and Ramadan Nights:
Rai, Rap, and Franco-Maghrebi Identities.” Displacement, Diaspora, and Geographies
of Identity. Ed. Smadar Lavie and Ted Swedenburg. Durham: Duke UP, 1996. 119–56.
Hall, Stuart. “Encoding, Decoding.” Culture, Media, Language. Ed. Stuart Hall, Dorothy
Hobson, Andrew Lowe, and Paul Willis. London: Routledge, 1980, repr. 1992. 128–38.
Hamilton, Kimberly A., ed. Migration and the New Europe. Washington, D.C.: Center for
Strategic and International Studies, 1994.
“Incorporating the Schengen ‘Acquis’ into the European Union Framework.” Europa: The
European Union Online. 13 June 2001. 18 June 2001. <http://europa.eu.int/scadplus/
leg/en/lvb/133020.htm>.
Lavie, Smadar, and Ted Swedenburg, ed. “Introduction: Displacement, Diaspora, and
Geographies of Identity.” Displacement, Diaspora, and Geographies of Identity.
Durham: Duke UP, 1996. 1–26.
Loescher, Gil, and Ann Dull Loescher. The Global Refugee Crisis. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC–
CLIO, 1994.
118 Susan C. Haedicke
Mariner, Joanne. “Asylum Under Threat.” Human Rights Watch. 5 January 2002. <http://
www.hrw.org/campaigns/refugees/section-3-1.htm>.
Miles, Robert, and Dietrich Thränhardt. Migration and European Integration: The
Dynamics of Inclusion and Exclusion. Madison, NJ: Fairleigh Dickinson UP, 1995.
Naficy, Hamid, ed. Home, Exile, Homeland: Film, Media, and the Politics of Place. New
York: Routledge, 1999.
“The Right to Asylum in the European Union.” Human Rights Watch World Report 1998. 10
January 2002. 6 January 2002. <http://www.hrw.org/worldreport/Helsinki-28.htm>.
Scarry, Elaine. The Body in Pain: The Making and Unmaking of the World. New York:
Oxford UP, 1985.
Silverman, Kaja. The Threshold of the Visible World. London: Routledge, 1996.
Un Voyage Pas Comme Les Autres. “Le cadre de l’exposition.” 10/9/01. <http://
www.fluctuat.net/glossaires/expos/villette/voyage.htm>.