Researching Theatre of the Oppressed:
A Scholarship of Teaching and Learning Project

Suzanne Burgoyne
Professor of Theatre
University of Missouri - Columbia
Columbia, Missouri, USA

Sharon Welch
Religious Studies, Women and Gender Studies
University of Missouri - Columbia
Columbia, Missouri, USA

Karen Cockrell
Department of Educational Leadership and Policy Analysis
University of Missouri - Columbia
Columbia, Missouri, USA

Helen Neville
Department of Educational Psychology
African American Studies and Research Program
University of Illinois
Urbana-Champaign, Illinois, USA

Peggy Placier
Educational Leadership & Policy Analysis
University of Missouri - Columbia
Columbia, Missouri, USA

Meghan Davidson
Counseling Psychology (Doctoral Candidate)
University of Missouri-Columbia
Columbia, Missouri, USA

Tamara Share
Counseling Practice
Durham, North Carolina, USA

Brock Fisher
Department of Theatre Arts
Bethel College
Mishawaka, Indiana, USA

Abstract

Augusto Boal's Theatre of the Oppressed (TO) has become a widely-used interactive theatre form. In this article, we analyze the responses of students who participated in a TO course. As the course progressed, the class broke into two opposing factions. While the instructor, who was teaching her first TO class, acknowledges that she made major mistakes, mistakes can sometimes provide a significant source of learning. Our qualitative analysis of student class journals suggests that the issue of student difficulty in dealing with difference was a significant condition for the polarization of the class.

We not only need to use our terror of differentiation but our terror of conflict. Americans are plagued with the disease of agreement. In the theatre, we often presume that collaboration means agreement. (Anne Bogart)

Introduction

Augusto Boal's participatory Theatre of the Oppressed (TO) is practiced widely. However, little research has been published on the impact of TO experiences--or on participants' responses to difficulties that can arise when doing TO work. In fall 2000, Burgoyne and an interdisciplinary team set out to research the impact of TO on students' understanding of oppression. It was Burgoyne's first TO class, and a difficulty arose regarding the level of risk students were willing to take. The class broke into two opposing factions over the selection of rape as a topic for Image Theatre. While Burgoyne acknowledges that she made major mistakes in handling the choice of topic, mistakes can sometimes provide a significant source of learning. Indeed, as Carnegie Scholar Randy Bass argues, "Changing the status of the problem in teaching from terminal remediation to ongoing investigation is precisely what the movement for a scholarship of teaching is all about" (1999). Burgoyne and her colleagues decided to transform a problem into an opportunity to learn why the difficulty arose. We used a qualitative method, grounded theory, to analyze student reactions to the incident, as recorded in their class journals. Our analysis suggests that the issue of difference--and student problems in dealing with difference-was a significant condition for the polarization of the class.

Background

We offer a brief explanation of Theatre of the Oppressed (TO) for readers unfamiliar with the form. TO was developed by Brazilian director/playwright Augusto Boal, drawing upon fellow Brazilian Paolo Freire's Pedagogy of the Oppressed. An engaged artist struggling against the Brazilian dictatorship in the sixties, Boal was arrested, tortured, and exiled in 1971. He had begun by producing propaganda-type theatre, but under the influence of Freire turned to doing theatre with instead of for audiences. TO involves participants, called spect-actors, in theatre exercises intended to empower participants to recognize, analyze, and overcome social oppression. TO's ultimate goal is action in the real world, for which the theatre experience serves as a kind of "rehearsal." Instead of telling people how they should solve their problems, TO practitioners guide a particular group in exploring a social problem relevant to that group (e.g., racism, a labor dispute, gender issues) and finding their own solution.

TO has an "arsenal" of theatre games and techniques which engage the body as well as the mind and provide opportunities for active, experiential learning. Cartei and Picher, founders of the Theater of the Oppressed Laboratory at NYU, propose that TO "techniques are practical pedagogical tools that can be integrated into the framework of any humanities or social science program," fostering critical thinking and active engagement (n.d.). Since TO deals with the uses and misuses of power, many of the games metaphorically explore power relationships. For instance, "Columbian Hypnosis" begins with participants in pairs leading each other with a hand in front of the partner's face, and ends with a tangled web of leaders and followers. The exercise may stimulate discussion of how power flows in institutions (especially if a small move in the web's center causes whiplash for those on the fringes).

In addition to basic TO theatre games, our class explored three major TO techniques: Image Theatre, Forum Theatre, and Rainbow of Desire.

In Image Theatre, spect-actors create living statues with other participants. The human clay is sculpted into an image of an oppressive situation related to a topic of interest to the group; then an "ideal" version and steps for causing societal change are explored. The images present an issue in a vivid, memorable way. For instance, shortly prior to the U.S. attack on Iraq, another TO class explored the current relationship between the American government and its citizens. One negative image depicted three citizens sitting on the floor, alternately with hands over eyes, ears, and mouth. Behind the citizens stood soldiers pointing guns.

In Forum Theatre, a scene developed through improvisation is performed, and the spect-actors enter into the play to try out solutions to the oppression depicted. Our TO class worked with an Education class to create Forum Theatre pieces dealing with multicultural issues in education. One piece, for example, depicted a mandatory standardized test which oppressed students: the Latina student who does not speak English, the African-American who finds the material irrelevant to her life, the student who objects to questions on evolution for religious reasons, etc. After an embattled teacher protagonist failed to solve the problem, the play was repeated, with spect-actors calling out, "stop!" and taking over the teacher's role.

Boal developed Rainbow of Desire, a therapeutic process, after working in countries where he found oppression to be more internalized than overt. In the basic Rainbow exercise, a spect-actor re-enacts a real-life conflict and identifies a variety of different "desires" he/she experienced. Other members of the group then embody these desires. The protagonist dialogues with his/her own desires and negotiates what role he/she wishes each desire to play in the conflict. One of the most moving moments in our TO class showed a teaching assistant re-enacting a conflict with a student who consistently missed class. One of the "desires" the protagonist identified was his pride in himself as a teacher. While talking with his pride, he realized that he did not want that part of himself involved as he tried to solve the problem with his student.

For further information on TO, the reader is referred to Boal's books in References. We encourage the novice to begin with Games for Actors and Non-Actors. For a concise explanation of applications of TO to the classroom, see Burgoyne (2004). We also encourage a visit to the website of Pedagogy & Theatre of the Oppressed, an organization which holds annual conferences and hosts workshops by Boal and other TO practitioners: http://www.unomaha.edu/~pto. The International Theatre of the Oppressed Organization publishes a newsletter and is developing an archive of projects and research: http://theatreoftheoppressed.org/en/index.php?useFlash=1.

Literature Review

The published literature on TO consists primarily of case studies, ideological analyses, and interviews with Boal (e.g., Schutzman and Cohen-Cruz, 1994). Even in the field of Education, there is little empirical research. Kaye and Ragusa, for example, report their use of TO "to analyze complex social issues," especially multiculturalism, "within the context of teacher education coursework" (1998, 2); however, their paper does not assess the techniques. Vierk (1997) applied TO as a means of stimulating critical thinking in composition courses; but her study lacks rigor. Brown and Gillespie argue for the effectiveness of TO in a higher education setting as a means of assisting faculty and administrators to "hone our skills, courage, and collective responses to resist the sources of our moral distress" (1999, 39); their argument is supported by examples rather than assessment. Carlebach and Singer state that students found using TO in service-learning projects "empowering" (1998, 197) but offer no supporting evidence other than ad hoc student comments and course evaluations. There are some relevant dissertations (e.g., Blanco, 2000) and more in the works, but the voice of the participants in TO has gone largely unheard. One recent exception is Negri-Pol (2004), who studied TO's impact on bicultural development of adult Latinas in a teacherpreparation program.

Description of the Study

The course was designed as a training program to teach TO techniques--an extended version of training workshops led by Boal. Fifteen students enrolled in the course at the University of Missouri-Columbia in Fall 2000, nine graduate students and six undergraduates; all but one were Theatre majors. Of the fifteen students, twelve agreed to participate in the research.

Five University of Missouri-Columbia faculty and six graduate students conducted the study. Burgoyne had been awarded a 2000/2001 Carnegie fellowship for the scholarship of teaching and learning, and she recruited an interdisciplinary team (Members from Theatre, Educational and Counseling Psychology, Religious Studies, and Educational Leadership and Policy Analysis).to work with her.

The methodology for analyzing data used a grounded theory approach (Glaser, 1978; Glaser and Strauss, 1967). Based in a sociological framework known as symbolic interaction (Blumer, 1969), grounded theory is a qualitative methodology (Allen, 1987) developed specifically for the study of social psychological phenomena (Bowers, 1988). The data is coded to reveal dimensions of the phenomenon (variables) and then matrixed to explore relationships among dimensions. Researchers identify core categories and generate a theory statement which arranges these categories into the grounded theory paradigm: what central problems, actions, or strategies occur; under what conditions; with what consequences; for whom?

The methodology examines a phenomenon from the point of view of the participants. Therefore, the following analysis reveals the perceptions of the students and is based on close examination of their journals. The authors do not necessarily concur with all opinions expressed in student quotes used to illustrate the analysis.

The Image Theatre Incident

During the first few weeks, the class engaged in TO games, community-building exercises. After several Image Theatre sessions, the instructor proposed that the class choose a more challenging topic, rather than "playing it safe." Someone proposed rape. While some students seemed enthusiastic, others protested. Another student proposed the topic of violence. The instructor asked the class how they wanted to choose--they suggested voting. However, the vote was split down the middle (rape vs. violence). The instructor abstained, and one of the students decided to change his vote to rape.

The group started working on the Image Theatre piece, but the tension in the room was palpable. The first image sculpted showed a man standing over a woman lying on the floor. The group discussed that image, and created several others. During the work, two students used their "right of egress" and declined to participate. [The term "right of egress" comes from creative drama (see Kent, 1994). Although the process is not usually used in TO, the instructor established the right of egress as a means of encouraging students to take responsibility for their own safety.]

When the class processed the exercise, students said they had been focused on the negative reactions of some class members. One said she was upset that we were doing unsafe work. Another retorted that everyone had the right of egress, and each person was responsible for taking care of herself. Class ended with tensions still high (Burgoyne, 2000).

As the course continued, it became clear that the topic of rape had split the class into "pro imaging" and "anti imaging" factions (hereafter referred to as "pro" and "anti"), each hostile to the other. The division crossed gender lines so could not be attributed to gender-specific attitudes.

The Analysis

Our research group decided to investigate the "Image Theatre meltdown." Why did the class division occur? What were its consequences? The literature on TO, aside from Boal's books, is sparse and does not cover such occurrences [one exception being Salverson, who discusses a TO workshop on racism in which a diverse group of participants divided in two on the basis of color (Schutzman and Cohen-Cruz, 1994)]. However, one of Burgoyne's Carnegie fellowship colleagues, Richard Gale, an experienced TO practitioner, told her such breakdowns commonly happen in a TO class as students confront their willingness to take risks. Therefore, we thought that analyzing the incident could generate useful insights.

Our analysis of the student journals suggests that an important condition for the class reaction to the Image Theatre incident is the issue of difference--and the students' problems in coping with difference. Students' perceptions of significant differences include: 1) attitudes and beliefs; 2) understanding of the nature and goals of Theatre of the Oppressed; 3) willingness to take risks. In attempting to cope with the feelings evoked by the experience, common student strategies involved justifying their own position and blaming their opponents. More than one student mentioned classmates' inability to hear opposing viewpoints, and their lack of respect for those who held different opinions. As a result of this division in the class, many felt the environment of safety and trust had been compromised. As the semester proceeded, other class experiences restored a collaborative atmosphere.

Many students commented on the diversity of opinions in the class, including differing ideas of what is oppressive. (All quotes from students, who have been given pseudonyms, are from their class journals.) As Martin observed, "When there is a group as diverse and middle class as our class (diverse in ideas, middle class in economy) it is hard to get the group unified for a forum theatre piece. Everyone has different issues" (Nov. 30). Cindy commented, "I don't feel that many people today in the US believe in oppressive forces that affect us all, only in the ones that affect them or their group individually. It is a unique problem for our class to deal with, in that we do not all have a cause that we are fighting for as an understood construct of our class coming together" (Nov. 6). Thus, the lack of a generally-shared oppression to address seemed to work against class cohesiveness.

Another significant difference involved varying student understandings of the nature of TO, in spite of extensive assigned readings in Boal's books. James reflected: "Theatre of the Oppressed means different things to different people in our social construct. And until we can arrive to a consensus, I do not think we can move forward in a healthy way" (Sept. 21).

One difference in student definitions of TO seemed related to goals: whether TO is meant to address social issues only or also psychological issues. As Doug Paterson, founder of the Omaha Center for Theatre of the Oppressed, points out, "Boal is pretty clear on this. Forum and Image Theatre are intended to begin with individual experiences . . . and to take the subject from the 'I have or know of this oppression' to 'we all have or know of this oppression.' This is intended to 'socialize' the issue, to take it from the individual to the collective . . . Rainbow goes in the other direction. It focuses on individual oppression, the personal experience of oppression in its specific manifestation in one individual. Yet while it does focus on the individual oppression, at the same time it never says this individual problem doesn't have social relevance and causes" (2003).

The "anti" faction argued that the issue of rape trespasses into potentially damaging psychological territory and should not be explored. The "pro" group felt that their opponents were ignoring the social dimensions of rape. Felicia, for instance, responded: "Rape is a social problem, a group problem. But comments were made that shifted the exploration of rape from a social problem to a personal problem. Makes me want to be a raving feminist marxist" (undated entry).

A second difference in definitions has to do with whether or not TO requires emotional involvement. James, an "anti" student, argued against emotional involvement, suggesting that "some people are perfectly willing to let their emotional baggage hang out in class while others are not. And that, I think, is the crux of the problem" (Sept. 21). Laura, a "pro" student took the opposing view: "A few people in the class seem to think it's wrong to conjure up any kind of emotion with these exercises. Then, what are we doing? We can't separate ourselves from oppressive issues, and if we could, then we probably wouldn't need to do this kind of work" (Sept. 21). Another "pro" student, Georgina, felt that unpleasant emotions might serve a purpose: "I think that TO is supposed to be uncomfortable so that a change of consciousness can take place." (Sept. 21).

A third difference in student definitions concerns whether TO solely involves helping society (others) change or requires that the individual TO student herself change. A "pro" student, Laura, raised the question: "Are we looking to Theatre of the Oppressed to help us understand and explore our world, or are we only learning the techniques to help other people?" (Sept. 21). An "anti" student, James, defined TO as "a tool which theatre moguls can utilize to incite social change and/or awareness" and not a means of changing the individual (Sept. 21).

Differences in student definitions of acceptable risks also played a role in the division of the class. Jan explained, "I was opposed to doing this topic [rape] because I thought it was a bit too risky" (Sept. 21). Another "anti" student, Marge, felt that the change from non-risk to high-risk topics was too abrupt: "I think we went from being 'easy' to being 'horridly difficult' without stepping on an in-between stage." Marge also observed that her definition of safety was not shared by the whole class: "To me, . . . safety means that we can trust others, that we will not be put into positions that we find scary or uncomfortable in any way. To others, safety meant something different" (Sept. 21). A "pro" student, Georgina, proposed a different definition of acceptable risk: "It's like my classmates refused to come face to face with their fears--therefore becoming their own oppressor. This to me is contrary to the basics of TO, facing and coming to terms with oppression (no matter how ugly it may be)" (Sept. 21).

Differing definitions of TO led to differing expectations about the course, arousing frustrations on both sides. Both "pro" and "anti" students accused their opponents of interfering with their education. Phyllis complained that she felt "frustrated" with the "anti" classmates: "I feel cheated out of the class's full potential. Going into this semester, I had anticipated a lot of down & dirty imaging & discussion of social and political issues. Instead, I don't feel like we've really gotten close to the core of anything" (Sept. 18-22). On the other side of the debate, James found the rape topic threatening: "I cannot participate if I feel threatened. And if I cannot participate, then I cannot acquire what it is I am here for: my education" (Sept. 21).

The division in the class aroused intense emotional responses. Cindy reflected, "I agree with Phyllis when she said there seemed to be animosity between group members" (Sept. 21). Student perceptions suggest that each group, "pro" and "anti," felt oppressed by the other.

While a few students attempted to understand their opponents' point of view, the journals reveal the majority defending their own position. Some entries comment on the inability of classmates to hear a different viewpoint. Marge, an "anti" student, perceived that some classmates "didn't want to listen," and observed: "I felt like everyone (me included) was only hearing what they wanted to hear" (Sept. 21). It could be hypothesized that the "social" vs. "psychological" debate hinged on a misunderstanding: that the "anti" faction was saying that rape as an issue is too personal/psychological, whereas the "pro" faction heard them saying that rape is only personal/psychological.

Some students reported that the hostility they felt in class prevented them from speaking openly. Cindy, who had done work on "women's health issues," said, "I did not feel like it was safe for me to say what I know, or have taught others, in that class period" (Sept. 21). Other students questioned their opponents' motives. Martin expressed disappointment at classmates' resistance to "finally tackling an issue" he considered significant, saying, "sometimes I think that people protest things just to stand out and get attention" (Sept. 21).

Feelings of guilt and ambivalence characterized some students' responses. Louise, a "pro" student observed, "I want us to push, to explore. But I don't want to hurt anyone. I'm feeling guilty, on two fronts. Guilty for not pushing & also guilty for being part of something that may have hurt one or more persons" (Sept. 21). Georgina, another "pro," reflected, "I felt bad about having contributed to making my classmates feel uncomfortable. . . . I don't think people should be forced to do anything in TO, yet I resent certain members of the group completely quitting the process" (Sept. 21). Marge, an "anti," said she felt "responsible" for everyone's upset (Sept. 21).

Members of both "pro" and "anti" factions reported feeling as if the other faction were looking down on them. A "pro" student, Felicia, declared her anger at "anti" students who she thought took "a position that postures a moral superiority, an intellectual disjunct, a refusal to play" (undated entry). Marge, an "anti" student said, "I feel like those of us who did not participate were looked down on as not being full participants in the exercise, when in actuality, I was fully participating by egressing. Suddenly, the right of egress became taboo . . ." (Sept. 21).

An inability or unwillingness to respect the other person, in spite of differences, seems to lie at the heart of the divisive experience. Marge notes this point being made by a classmate: "[He] said, 'Yes, but we all have to respect one another in this class, whether we agree or disagree'" (Sept. 21).

Issues of "difference" continued to surface in the journals. After Image Theatre, the class moved to Forum Theatre, choosing issues and dividing into small groups to develop scenarios. The topics selected were: sexual harassment, the oppression of non-smokers/drinkers, and the oppression of smokers/drinkers. Some "pro" students felt the class was still playing it safe. Carl voiced his frustration: "smoking/drinking v non-smoking/drinking are not issues of oppression if compared to other issues such as class and race discrimination" (Oct. 5). However, the "duelling" Forum Theatre pieces on smoking/drinking ultimately seemed to have a beneficial effect on student attitudes towards difference. Phyllis, a rabid anti-smoker, found that viewing the "oppression of smoker/drinkers" piece gave her a new outlook: "For the first time, I was able to see the other side of the coin. This is a very big thing, because I never sympathized with them before" (Oct. 9-13). Cindy reflected: "I liked that the complexity of the issue made many people in the class understand more of the oppression each group felt, and changed their attitude to be much more understanding" (Nov. 9).

In the last third of the semester, the class indicated their willingness to try Rainbow, Boal's therapeutic technique, which proved to be almost everyone's favorite. Martin pointed out: "Rainbow does not require the whole group to agree that a principle is true, it does allow a group to empathize with an individual" (Nov. 30). While some students thus suggested that Rainbow permitted the class to avoid confronting issues of difference, others implied that Rainbow impacted their tolerance for difference. Laura said, "I learned that different things oppress me than oppress [the Rainbow protagonist] and she handles oppression in a different way, but it's not wrong" (Dec. 5). Even James, one of the most vocal opponents of psychological applications of theatre, commented, "Today, I saw the first real benefits of drama therapy. And I did not feel threatened or unsafe" (Nov. 30).

Rainbow seemed to bring the class together as a community. James credited the Rainbow work with making the class environment "safer somehow. . . . I mean, when, during processing, has the class not debated heatedly or outright bitched about something that happened? Well, again since we started RB. Something about the experience of working through the project(s) has allowed the class to feel like they've really gotten somewhere. Like everyone has worked through it . . . been in the driver's seat (in spirit if not as the protagonist), nailed down the problem as a group and figured out a solution" (Dec. 5). Georgina reacted similarly: "I think that anyone who experiences TO can learn to deal with the world more effectively. The sense of community that is engendered in the group work, especially Rainbow, is a valuable people skill. . . . How often does a group of strangers come together for the purpose of helping one person feel better about one part of their life? Not very often, and I must say that it has been a pleasure to be a part of such a giving and helpful community" (Dec. 12)

In their final journal entries, some students referred to the issue of "difference" and the sense of cohesiveness that the group eventually achieved. Georgina observed, "The activities in TO have caused me to experience a lot of self-revelation, and also sensitized me to the views of people whom I don't agree with" (Dec. 12). Cindy, who earlier had felt unable to speak out, acknowledged, "I feel that because people felt able to say what they felt (mostly) we had created the 'safe' environment that was discussed closer to the beginning of the class" (Dec. 12).

Discussion

Our analysis suggests some strategies that might be useful for avoiding divisiveness in future TO courses. One option might be to homogonize the class by basing it on announced exploration of a particular social issue. Another option might involve the instructor's warning students about the likelihood of TO engendering some emotional discomfort before issuing consent cards. Emphasizing the importance of respect for others, in spite of differing views, might be an additional instructor strategy.

The instructor also recognizes that she made mistakes. Given the vehement opposition to the topic of rape, it was unwise to proceed, even with a majority vote. Indeed, experienced TO practitioners Doug Paterson and Richard Gale observe that consensus rather than vote is the usual procedure for selection of topics in TO. Gale says, "In almost every TO workshop I have attended and led, the central images have been selected not by majority vote, but by consensus. Everyone must agree to the theme for it to be enacted. Because the point of TO is to investigate possible change actions for the group (not for individuals alone) the entire group must be on board" (2002). In the training workshops led by Boal which the instructor attended, however, topics were selected by vote of the group.

Allowing the class to image the moment of rape itself was also an error. As Boal points out, one must distinguish between oppression and aggression: "when the model presents an aggression, the only answer is resignation because all the possible courses of action depend exclusively on physical strength" (1992, 226). Boal argues that TO, which is meant to empower the spect-actor, should depict moments of choice, when solutions are possible. A few of the journal entries reveal students reflecting on this point. Louise, for instance, says, "Why represent the image of the actual act itself? There's no ideal for that. We are helpless. The protagonist has no alternatives" (Sept. 21). If the topic of rape were to be explored, focusing on a choice point such as "dealing with the aftermath" would help.

Given that the class had been dealing with low-risk topics, it is also clear that, as Marge observed, the shift to a rape as a topic was too abrupt. Topics could have been found which challenged the students but made the progression more gradual.

Theories of social violence also may provide insight into the kind of division that occurred in the class. Rene Girard, a leading theorist of social violence, analyzes a phenomenon that he describes as the "double bind" and "mimetic doubles." Conflict between individuals and groups can escalate to the point where they become mirrors of the other, each justifying their violence against the other as righteous violence (Girard, 1977, 79). Theophus Smith describes the phenomenon: "Doubles are rivals whose mutual desire to displace the other renders them increasingly like one another as their conflict escalates. At the furthest extreme of mutually desired homicide the essential identity between antagonists is complete: each desires sole survival on the condition of the other's annihilation." (1994, 197-98).

Girard claims that the only way that societies have found to escape the 'double bind' is through the displacement of violence onto a scapegoat: former enemies join in vanquishing another enemy, one who is seen as a threat to the survival of both (1977, 83). Wallace and Smith (1994) have argued that there are other ways of escaping the 'double bind'. They point to the importance of disclosing the false projection of guilt on any scapegoat. Their wager is that if the antagonists can see that they have become their enemy, and if they can see that the scapegoat is extraneous to their conflict, then it may be possible to stop the spiral of violence. Smith argues "that what is actually transformative is an exposé of the scapegoating process itself" (Wallace and Smith, 1994, 249).

In the Theatre class, we saw the emergence of the 'double bind' and 'mimetic doubles.' When serious conflict broke out, the class was quickly polarized, each side seeing the other as not only wrong, but dismissive of their claims. The two sides did not understand each other as offering perspectives worth considering, but as taking positions that made genuine, healing TO work impossible.

Taking a cue from Girard, Wallace and Smith, we now see that it would be a valuable exercise to bring to consciousness the polarization that has occurred. Iinstead of seeking ways to avoid the kind of divisiveness evoked by the incident, we should consider how the instructor might transform the event into a "teachable moment." Using Image Theatre techniques to explore the dynamics of the situation might have helped the class understand each other's perspectives and move on together as a community. For instance, each group might image the oppression they felt and the choice point at which that oppression occurred. From those choice points, alternative steps to prevent the oppression could be explored, leading towards an image of their "ideal" class created by all the students. Since our analysis of the journals reveals that the two groups had different ideas about what they wanted from the course, the process of imaging the "ideal" class might foreground those differing assumptions, making it possible to negotiate an approach to further work acceptable to everyone.

The analysis of this "problem in teaching" allowed us to focus on the students' perceptions of what happened in the class, rather than assuming we knew what was going on, and highlighted possibilities we wouldn't have thought of. The goal of TO is to empower participants, to give them a voice, and this scholarship of teaching and learning study allowed us to hear the student voice more clearly--and to learn from it.

Additional Research on TO

Our research in 2000/2001 also involved a collaborative project in which the TO class and an Education class for pre-service teachers created Image and Forum Theatre projects together (see Burgoyne, et. al., 2003). We administered a modification of Heppner and O'Brien's Guided Inquiry Survey, asking participants if their their thoughts about oppression changed since taking the class, and if so, in what ways. Twelve Theatre students and thirteen Education students completed the survey, which was coded by the team. The overwhelming majority (84%) stated that their understanding of oppression had changed to some degree. Most students said they gained a deeper intellectual understanding of the concept of oppression. For example, one student said, " I am more aware of how people get oppressed and of how often it is taking place in everyday life." A number of students also identified increase in personal awareness, for example: "I now know that oppression occurs to me and I have oppressed others not knowing I was."

We also conducted two 90-minute focus groups in the semester following the TO class; five Theatre students and one Education student participated. Analysis of the focus groups supports and expands upon data from the survey.

A consistent theme emerging in both focus groups is students' belief that TO provides individuals with more options regarding actions to take in oppressive situations. Phyllis, for instance, said, "when I am in a situation where I am feeling oppressed or I feel like there is some injustice going on in my life, I have caught myself now stopping and thinking . . . there are solutions, there are things that I can try, there are things that I can say, tactics I can take." Speaking in the other group, Louise also reported, "[TO] makes me aware of options, it makes me think about options, that there is not only one way." In the sense that their TO experience made students aware of the possibility of alternative strategies in the face of oppression, it fulfilled the TO goal of empowering participants. So although the teacher made mistakes, and although the TO students struggled at times, the majority of them learned something of value about their world-and themselves.

References

Allen, D. (1986). Nursing research and social control: alternative models of science that emphasize understanding and emancipation. Image 17, 59-65.

Bass, R. (1999). The Scholarship of Teaching: What's the Problem?, Inventio [online journal] 1, no. 1. http://www.doiiit.gmu.edu/Archives/feb98/randybass.htm

Blanco, J. F. (2000). Theater of the Oppressed and Health Education with Farm Workers: A Primary Research Project. Ph.D. diss. Florida State University.

Blumer, H. (1969). Symbolic interactionism: Perspective and method. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Boal, A. (1992). Games for Actors and Non-Actors, trans. A. Jackson. New York: Routledge.

Boal, A. (1998). Legislative Theatre, trans. A. Jackson. London: Routledge.

Boal, A. (1995). Rainbow of Desire: The Boal Method of Theatre and Therapy., trans.A. Jackson. London: Routledge.

Boal, A. (1979) Theatre of the Oppressed, trans. C. A. McBride and M.-O. L. McBride. New York: Urizen.

Bowers, B. (1988). Family perceptions of care in a nursing home. The Gerontologist 28, 3.

Brown, K.H. and Gillespie, D. (Sept./Oct. 1999) Responding to moral distress in the university: Augusto Boal's Theatre of the Oppressed, Change, pp. 35-39.

Burgoyne, S. (Fall 2000). Instructor's journal, TO class.

Burgoyne, S. (Winter 2004). Engaging the Whole Student: Interactive Theatre in the Classroom. POD Essays in Teaching Excellence v. 15, no. 5.

Burgoyne, S., Cockrell, K., Neville, H., Placier, P., Welch, S., Davidson, M., Share, T., and Fisher, B. (Dec. 2003) Theatre of the Oppressed as Pedagogy, National Teaching and Learning Forum 13, no. 1: 4-6. http://www.ntlf.com/html/pi/v13n1/carnegie.htm

Carlebach, S. W., and J.A. Singer. (1998) Applying Service-Learning to the Problem of Prejudice: A Psychology and Theater Course. With Service in Mind: Concepts and Models for Service-Learning in Psychology, ed. G. Bringle and D. K. Duffy. Washington, DC, American Association for Higher Education.

Cartei, C. and Picher, M.-C,. (n.d.). What Is Theatre of the Oppressed: The Theatre of the Oppressed Across the Curriculum. http://www.toplab.org

Freire, P. (1998) Pedagogy of the oppressed, trans. M.B. Ramos. New York: Continuum.

Gale, R. (22 Sept. 2002). Electronic communication.

Girard, R. (1986). The Scapegoat, trans. Y. Frecerro. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

Girard, R, with Ourgoulian, J.M., and Lefort, G. (1987). Things Hidden Since the Foundation of the World. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1987.

Girard, R. (1977). Violence and the Sacred, trans P. Gregory. Baltimore, The Johns Hopkins University Press.

Glaser, B.G. (1978). Theoretical Sensitivity. Mill Valley: Sociology Press.

Glaser, B.G, and A. Srauss. (1967). Discovery of grounded theory. New York: Aldine.

Heppner M. J., and K. M. O'Brien. (1994). Multi-cultural counselor training: An examination of students, perceptions of helpful and hindering events, Counselor Education and Supervision 34, pp. 4-18.

Kaye, C., and G. Ragusa. (1998). Boal's Mirror: Reflections for Teacher Education. ERIC, ED 419787.

Kent, A. (1994). "I Was There!": Creative Drama for Social Change. Theatre Topics 4, 65-73.

Negri-Pol, L. L. (2004) "Theatre of the Oppressed: Un camino hacia poder y desarrollo de las Latinas." M.A. thesis, Pacific Oaks College.

Paterson, D. (7 Jan. 2003). Electronic communication.

Schutzman, M., and J. Cohen-Cruz, eds. (1994). Playing Boal: Theatre, Therapy, Activism. New York: Routledge.

Smith, T. (1994). Conjuring Culture: Biblical Formations of Black America. New York: Oxford University Press.

Vierk, J.M. (1997). The use of pedagogy and theatre of the oppressed and interactive theatre exercises in the community college composition classroom. Ph.D. diss., University of Nebraska.

Wallace, M., and T. Smith, eds. (1994). Curing Violence. Sonoma, CA: Polebridge Press.

Back to Top