Nora Amin

Playing with Authority

Keynote Speech

Keynote – delivered on 08.11.2020 as part of the symposium “Race – Class – Gender. Intersectional perspectives in dance and theatre for the youngest”

Authority has always played a role throughout the history of performance, from theatre to music to dance, as it does in any form of public expression. The public aspect of these expressions makes it essential to review and monitor what is offered, as it establishes visible communication and makes socio-political statements that can have an impact on public opinion. The authorization of content and forms has always been in the power of the state, the cultural elite and the ruling systems in general. For example, some states have also created official censorship authorities – some of which are subordinate to the Ministry of Culture – and others have chosen to carry out verification and monitoring indirectly or even confidentially. The power of society can also be an authority, an authority that allows or prohibits. The prevailing ethical system and bourgeois conventions make it possible to exclude certain contents through rejection, repression and shame. Anything that falls into the category of opposition to the ruling political or ethical system could thus probably become excluded content. The word taboo has always been associated not only with certain deeds and actions, but also with utterances.

What taboos do we have in the field of public opinion?

The word taboo is probably even more associated with statements or the expression of deeds than with the actual execution of these deeds. The public expression of a thing can be stronger than the thing itself. Public expression and dispersion has the power to spread and influence, thus becoming a political tool. A force is an ability to do something. As a child and teenager, I had the strength to dance on the streets of Cairo, I was filled with that strength, it nourished me – but could I really dance on the streets? No. I did not have the authority, that is, the authority, to put my power into action, to make it happen. Someone else had – and still has – that authority; the authority to allow the exercise of my power and such actions in general. For most of my career, I was not allowed to dance or perform on the streets – although that was my dream with the theatre of the oppressed in Egypt – because there was a so-called emergency law, which was in force for 35 years – until the 2011 revolution – and did not allow street performances, as it classified them as public political acts. Thus, there was no distinction between a protest and a dance event. Anyone who had the strength and the predisposition to do something needed permission. Authority, Authorized and Authorized.

What is the significance of authorization in your own life?

Who had the power to authorize? Who had the power to authorize those in power? Of course, this was the state, the regime, the government, the legal and judicial system, the religious institutions, the parents, the teachers, the spiritual leaders, the political leaders, the head of the political party, the director of the theater. Authority was a way of exploiting, filtering, exploiting and subjugating power. In reality, then, there was no power, only authority. Does this also apply to Germany? For Europe? Does it apply to democratic states? In my opinion, the concept of authority applies everywhere and at any time, as it is a prerequisite for governance. There is no government without authority. But when democracy is claimed, authority can perhaps be achieved through transparency and equality, with transparency and equality being at the same time principles and safeguards. The legitimacy of those who hold the authority to authorize is validated through elections, engagement, public discussion, justice and transparency. Legitimacy itself is authorized by the people. And only in this situation can we question people's mentality and their thinking system. Our entire system of thought is dominated by notions of normativity and normality. These notions are not independent of our universal history of oppression, discrimination and hierarchy. These ideas are not innocent. Like all areas of ethics and morality, they are contaminated with a traumatic history of what is ‘normal’, what is ‘acceptable’, what is ‘ok’ and what is ‘not OK’, what is ‘beautiful’ and what is ‘ugly’, what is ‘superior’ and what is ‘inferior’. This universal history would not have survived to this day – because it is still alive today – if it were not for pedagogy. Pedagogy is the tool for protecting norms, ruling ethics and the structure of personality and identity. Pedagogy encompasses the entire field of knowledge transfer, all learning systems and whatever shapes and feeds our understanding of the world and ourselves from birth. This pedagogy is a protective measure of authority. It secures the power of authority. Therefore, knowledge, traditions and norms are passed on from one generation to the next and maintained by pedagogy. Pedagogy in itself can be anything, it can be chaotic, it can be secular or religious, it can be an oppressive or a liberating and empowering pedagogy.

What kind of pedagogy has your society gone through?

There is a suitable pedagogy for every ideology and every system of rule. Nevertheless, a pedagogy can also be revised by extraordinary and protracted efforts. It can be turned from oppressive to liberating, and vice versa. Again, this has authority in hand. Paulo Freire (a great thinker, educator and philosopher) and Augusto Boal (the founder of the Theatre of the Oppressed) worked hand in hand to transform the pedagogy of the oppressed into a pedagogy of the self-liberated. The authoritarian system in Brazil at the time – the dictatorship – had been backed up by a pedagogy of oppression. Paulo Freire created a fundamental text of critical pedagogy in 1968, his famous book ‘Pedagogy of the Oppressed’, in which he incorporates a detailed Marxist class analysis into his investigation of the relationship between coloniser and colonised. In the book, Freire refers to traditional pedagogy as the ‘banking model of education’ because it treats pupils as an empty vessel to be filled with knowledge. He argues that pedagogy should instead treat learners as co-creators of knowledge.

I propose that through critical pedagogy – as an element of critical discourse in general – we re-examine our practices and environments. For example, oppressive pedagogies – which exist in many places around the world – usually instrumentalise citizens by making them reproduce the systems of their own oppression. As I once said about Egypt, it is not enough to remove the head of the regime, we must rather work as citizens to change our own system of thought, otherwise we run the risk of reproducing the same oppression over and over again. Therefore, the long struggle for change and equality is the one that takes place in the field of pedagogy.

What form(s) of critical pedagogy exist in our society?

If – in our society – we are still dealing with issues and problems of diversity, equality and justice, then we need to review our pedagogy. Because even if we live in a democratic state, there is no guarantee that our pedagogy is free of evils. Democracy in itself is not enough if all the thinking and beliefs of the majority are not based on the principles of equality and justice. A long process of questioning and reviewing brought us here today, brought us together and led us into the field of performance for young audiences. Because the work for children and young people brings us directly into the domain of questioning values and normativity.

Are we questioning standards?

And do we question our positions as part of our professional work?

Are we questioning our professional positions?

When working with and for an audience that is in the process of growth and transformation, we must be aware that every piece of information, every movement, every dialogue and every visual composition helps to expand the consciousness of these young viewers and shape their identities, their idea of normality and their worldview. This is a huge responsibility. A responsibility that does not exclude the fact that we – as adult artists, administrators inside and workers – are still in the process of questioning our identities, value systems and professional positions – I would say ‘our intersectional positions’. For every r of us is MANY.

What roles do I play every day?

The roles we play and the stories we carry around with us form an intersectional field of identity and self-positioning for each of us. But do this intersectionality and plurality also come into play in the creation of our work? And how? Do we encounter restrictions? Prejudice? Taboos? Do we often question the general pedagogy within which we work? Why are we questioning them? How do we question them? Are we doing this because our positions – intersectional positions – bring us to this question? Do we do it because of political beliefs? Are we doing it because, in our personal lives, we have been persecuted, discriminated against, labelled, disempowered and threatened? Where is the answer? Or is the answer intersectional?

What personal struggles do I have?

I am very surprised that the areas of education and art are so strongly distinguished from each other. It is impossible for me to make that distinction. Insisting on it – even forcing it – can only happen from a mentality that works with separations, interruptions and boundaries. It reveals a need to constantly create categories and separate them from each other.

Within which categories do I move myself?

Such a mentality of subdivision and categorization represents a vision of the world that cannot be holistic and intersectional.

What does ‘holistic’ mean to you at a professional level?

It is a vision of the world that does not reflect the natural flow of how identities grow, merge, connect, intertwine and overlap. A vision of the world that sees a fragmented self as ‘normal’.

What does ‘a fragmented self’ mean to you?

A:e teacher:in can also be a:e actor:in, a:e dancer:in can be a:e teacher:in, a:e mediator:in and a:e healer:in. A performance can convey the possibility of transformation, self-realization, an imaginary act, a value that resists social normativity. A performance created by and with young people is a statement about possibilities.

Do I create ‘statements about opportunities’?

It is also a statement about the recognition and validation of what is yet to become.

What do I acknowledge and confirm?

It is a statement about the recognition of the youth as a bearer of knowledge, as a creator and co-designer of pedagogy. There is huge potential in this statement to push the boundaries between education and art, merging the stage with pedagogy and transforming both. For we should not forget that even the stage itself is not a place free of authority,

What forms of authority are there in our theatre sector?

Not free of hierarchies

What forms of hierarchy exist in our theatre sector?

Not free from oppression.

The story of the performance carries the traumatic experiences of rejection, shame and exclusion. Each society has its own wounds, which are also reflected on the stage in the form of taboos.The taboos hide and deny the wound and thereby widen and deepen it.

What to show and what not to show? And if we accept not to ‘show’ something, would that not mean that we are accomplices in hiding the truth and in choosing the reality to (re)present? Does the pedagogical system even allow this choice? Or are we conditioned by some kind of autocensorship, excluding topics and experiences without discussing them with ourselves?

Also within the art system, authority functions as a dictatorship in which some art forms are completely shamed and excluded, and in which there are always preconceived notions of what is ‘acceptable art’, what is ‘good quality’ and what is ‘excellence’. As a migrant, I have the privilege of not knowing everything, always questioning and asking why. Why is this considered a good play, and why is this form considered folklore or culture-specific art, rather than universal? Why is it not possible to present a Baladi dance performance for teenagers or invite them to practice Dabke? Why is the audience perceived or constructed as merely watching? And since every performance is based on a ‘look’ principle, what is the view we are dealing with here? From what perspective? Who has the authority to decide the perspective of the gaze? Are we somehow conditioned at a particular glance that isn't really ours? And how can you empower the young audience to find their own unobstructed view?

Each performance is based on a concept as it should be considered. How do we formulate for our young audience the way in which our performances should be seen? According to what system of authority? From what position? And how does all this fit in with the social and humane values of equality and solidarity? How does this work within a knowledge system based on Othering[ii]? How do we deal with questions of identity when it comes to a young audience, knowing that we are also involved in the general pedagogy of citizenship, rights and duties and freedoms? What perspective do we need to direct our creative processes towards more openness, fluidity and plurality?

How much openness, fluidity and plurality is in my practice?

Race, Gender and Class: These are the main terms of categorization, separation, and othering. The word ‘race’ should be deleted from any constitution and definitely also from our perception of humanity. There is only one race, and that is the human species. While we are in constant struggle with racism, we must not forget the sexism and authority of patriarchy, a universal authority that unites the worlds of those oppressed and oppressed by racism. And while the privileged socio-economic class can always evade authority by being among those who create the rules and laws, those who are economically disadvantaged become social outsiders. Everything is related to everything. Intersectionality is not a new invention that has awakened us; She has always been there, in her negative story and in her positive potential. Thinking intersectionally means broadening our understanding of our identities and the world we live in. It means rethinking the fundamental notions of our work and our lives and defining them as interconnected and interwoven. It also means taking into account the intersection between the stage and human rights, as well as the growing aggression against children worldwide, which we must address in all its complexity and sensitivity, because even children in kindergartens now seem to have had traumatic experiences, albeit in rare cases, and this is crucial for raising awareness about self-employment, protection and rights.

Thinking intersectionally also means acting intersectionally and never losing sight of one's own stories and trauma experiences. Thinking intersectionally means thinking of performances as pedagogy and thinking of pedagogy as a performance of authority. It is to think of our creative selves as looking and creating at the same time, as an adult and youthful at the same time.

Thinking intersectionally means questioning our own identity and locating the different paths of self, all of which are still alive and functioning and overlapping. Thinking about the overlapping of race, gender and class also means thinking about the overlapping of oppressions, the overlapping of privileges, and the overlapping of oppressions and privileges. It also means thinking about who goes to the theater at all, who sees us, who hears us, and who we address? And we: Who are we talking to? How do we imagine our society? And how do we dream of the future citizenry?

What do I wish for the future?

It is also essential to think of the intersectionality of authorities. There are many authorities that influence our artistic sphere: state authorities, economic and social authorities, and political-historical authorities. Who has the last word? Who makes the final decision? What are the criteria? What is the norm if there is one? Why do we even need a standard?

To become an artist is a circumstance that comes with authority. It means having access to the arts, being accepted into the art world, being accepted by this community, and having the opportunity to study the performing arts, if you wish, and to practice them professionally? What is my chance of becoming a dancer if I am a woman of colour in an underprivileged economic situation, with a massive body and a slight disability? As a child, what was my chance to see ballet at the Stadttheater? And what chance did I have to see a dancer on stage who was similar to my intersectional identity? Some situations are simply unimaginable. And as long as they are unimaginable, there is no equality and no solidarity. For working towards these unimaginable scenarios also means working towards a future society in which pedagogy is liberated from colonial history, economic privileges and patriarchal rule. The stages of the performing arts, whether for adolescents or adults, are still completely contaminated by these historical developments, these (intersectional) developments. And perhaps moving forward – at some point – also means giving up privileges, or at least a small part of them. It would be a pretty big win, as it can be seen as a political act that restores the sense of solidarity and helps to create a kind of togetherness that can set in motion a better future for all.

Isn't all this connected with authority? With race, gender and class? Surely we live in a diverse society, but does this diversity also mean equality?

Can this diversity be transformed into equality?

Can it be translated into a plurality of artistic practices and access?

Or is it a diversity that is categorised and ‘authorised’, like a label?

Is youth theatre a category inferior to adult theatre? Why is that so? Where does this hierarchy come from if it does not assume that a child is an inferior being compared to an adult? And with that, the whole area of youth theatre? How to turn a ‘theatre for youth’ into a ‘theatre for youth’, a pedagogical domain ahead of society and cultural policy, a pedagogical field of tomorrow?

How can we use authority to deconstruct authority and restore the legitimacy of the creative self, thus reaching the authority of non-authority?

How can we play with authority? Can we play against authority? Or can we play with an attitude of authority?

Does the playful form a potentially transformative force in our field?

Discussing all these issues together today and here means moving forward. It is a movement in which there is no separation between artistic creativity and activism, because collective actions that have a clear goal and strategy are already activism. Beyond the traditional image of protests and demonstrations, we, as artists, can create our own form of activism. Only one letter distinguishes ART and ACT. We can transform and develop our ideas, answers, suggestions into a plan for the transmission of actions, whereby each person/institution can expand the question/statement and supplement it with another symbolic or artistic action. Let us seek questioning as the basis of any future action and action, and let us strive to do more. Let's aim to play all of them together. Let's play!

[1] In the English original, ‘Power’ has the double meaning of power and power. Here used in distinction to authority in the sense of an authorization.

[2] The concept of othering emerged from the context of postcolonial theory. It was mainly coined by authors such as Edward Said and Gayatri C. Spivak. Othering is a permanent act of demarcation, in which people are made ‘others’ by means of stereotyping. ‘The others’ are categorised and devalued as non-affiliated and deviant. The process of othering often happens within a power divide.

See [https://www.ikud.de/glossar/othering-definition.html]

The keynote was given on 08.11.2020 as part of Fratz International 2020 and the Symposium Race – Class – Gender. Intersectional perspectives in dance and theatre for the youngest. The recording can be viewed via this link.

Nora Amin's latest book "Dance of the Persecuted" will be published on 18.03 by Matthes & Seitz.