Day 7

22nd May 2019

Activities:

1. Today, we were joined by Sundar Sarukkai, a renowned professor of philosophy. He delivered a guest lecture that pushed the lab to think deeply about the big picture conflicts—or problems—that our projects are grappling with. He introduced the idea that, rather than pouring through long academic texts on moral and ethical concerns, we should look to identify the philosophical question inherently present in the conflict that our project is considering. He explained that all problems have a historical context. For any problem to exist, they must have, at some point in our history, been created; Prof. Sarukkai suggested, to understand the nuances of a problem, that we begin there, at its origin.
2. Then, Prof. Sarukkai put two questions to the group: “How much should we know before we are eligible to speak about a topic?” and “Why is this topic important to you?”
3. Over the course of our conversation, we discussed answers to these two questions. In considering his first question, we discussed, as we have before, how to find the balance between conducting systematic research and following creative impulse. Prof. Sarukkai made an important distinction between wanting to know more and being too afraid to start writing; he noted that there will always be another book that might further our understanding of a topic, but that we should not spend our time chasing the illusion of complete knowledge. Instead, he advised that we write from what we already know, and fill in the gaps along the way.
4. Additionally, he said that, in researching for our projects, we must be careful that our plays do not appear didactic and purely educational on the stage—that the research and desire to inform an audience does not drown out the story and its affective qualities. On this note, he suggested a useful analogy: he described the visual of placing a black chair against a white background. The black chair is made visible on the stage through its contrast with a white background, and the two are defined in relation to one another, he said. Similarly, the knowledge we accumulate through our research should provide a contextual framework, a white background, that helps define a story—a black chair—that can, in turn, also bring the background into view, and still manage to do something of its own too.
5. After that, each of us took turns to explain our projects to Prof. Sarukkai and he pushed us to think about our work from different perspectives, and about the different philosophical questions inherent in these subjects. We discussed activism in theatre and its successes and pitfalls, and also the importance of self-reflection in the process of creating art.
6. After Prof. Sarukkai left, the lab visited Fields of View, which is a non-profit organization that simulates choice-based games to inform public policy. We participated in a game that places participants in the lives of low-income, often SC/ST communities, and asks them to navigate challenges related to income, the family, and other aspects of life. Half the lab had to play the roles of low-income workers in a garment factory, and the other half played the roles of the factory’s upper management. The game was moving and designed to recreate an iteration of the hardships low-income laborers struggle with.

Questions considered:

1. Why are you writing this project? What interests you about this problem? What do you want to explain about it? What questions do you want to ask the audience?
2. What is the role of pedagogy in the theatre? What is research’s relation to plot? How do you strike the balance between informing an audience and telling a story?
3. How do you know that you have done enough research? How do you know that you are ready? What can you write with what you know?
4. How do you identify your project’s philosophical questions? How do you present these observations and questions on the stage?
5. How do you occupy the worlds of your characters? What tools are available to understand the different communities represented in your work?