Yes, But Do You Have It In “Global?”
I imagine I’m not the only person who, while perusing the aisles in Target or any other comparable store, has been noticing a growing trend in nearly every department: that of “global” everything. “Global” patterned tablecloths. “Global” spice blends. Even “global”-style clothing. These products labeled “global” usually seem to be modeled after certain parts of the world: anywhere that doesn’t include the Western, predominantly white countries that perpetrate(ed) colonization. It begs many questions: how can “global” mean “global” when we only represent half of the world? Aren’t we just capitalizing and commercializing traditional design and patterns, often without understanding and giving space to their cultural significance (ahem, cultural appropriation)? And is this word, considering its loaded and problematized usage, one that producers of authentic global work/art/design should claim? Simultaneously, “global” has taken on another misrepresentative meaning within, specifically, theatre circles.
Heavy stuff, I know, but combining past knowledge gained during my time studying intersectional feminism at the University of Minnesota–Twin Cities with these first couple of months interning at Pangea World Theater (where I’ve been learning about what it takes to produce authentic global theatre), I have gained perspective on these burning questions.
I sat down with Dipanker Mukherjee, Pangea’s co-founder and Artistic Director to find out more. During our conversation he offered the wisdom of over twenty years in social justice work (particularly through the medium of theater).
Pangea World Theater, where I have interned for the past 2.5 months, engages truly global topics, design, aesthetic, and narratives with methods that ensure authenticity and representation of cultural origins. This was made evident to me in my first exposure to Pangea, when I interviewed for the position. It was, to say the least, an unorthodox sort of interview. I arrived, accidentally thirty minutes early, and was asked if I wanted to tag along for a walkthrough for a potential stage space for Pangea’s newest (at that time) production, What Fuels Development?.
I immediately agreed and learned, during the drive over, what the production was actually about. The plot focuses around a development company in Skid Row attempting to convert the bottom floor of a living space (where the majority of residents are recovering addicts and alcoholics) into an alcohol-serving establishment. The production achieved authenticity by casting entirely people who had or currently were experiencing homelessness.
In my first exposure to Pangea, it was quickly demonstrated to me that this theater production ensemble is devoted to creating authenticity, a mindset that translates to Pangea’s creation of global works.
For a bit of general background about Pangea, it is important to understand their mission statement:
“Pangea illuminates the human condition, celebrates cultural differences, and promotes human rights by creating and presenting international, multi-disciplinary theater.”
Nowhere in this mission statement is the word global, despite the fact that the meaning is there. But what is that meaning? Dipanker’s first point, when asked that same question, was to say that we must first find out what we, Pangea, mean when we say that we are creating global works. Only then can we engage and deconstruct meaning.
As an example, Dipanker explained how methodologies have been codified in theater spaces (this is one of those misguided meanings I was talking about): Non-Western=oral/ Indigenous/Asian/African cultures. While the “global theater” genre is packed, it is not with works that derive from oral culture. A specific example of this, as provided by Dipanker, is that of Natya Shastra, a Sanskrit Hindu text that literally translates to “Performance Logic.” Natya Shastra in India is comparable, in terms of time of invention and cultural significance to Aristotle in Greece, yet is not treated with the same respect and predominance in that “global” category.
Dipanker spoke to his experience working as a residency director at the Guthrie just over 20 years ago, when he realized that all the literature they had was Western, and that the “global” representatives hailed from places like the U.S., U.K., or Ireland. White, European places. How this can be called global when it ignores half of that globe? Further problems are found in how the white/European/written methodology has become the standard of how we critique theatre. In Dipanker’s eyes, the root of the problem lies in the prominence of these two distinct and equally misguided understandings of the “global.”
“How do we push against this?” I asked Dipanker. His answer now seems beautifully obvious to me because it is exactly what Pangea does, and what he and Meena Natarajan co-founded Pangea to do: “consciously craft multi-aesthetic, diverse environments in which intersectionalities push us to push the boundaries of ‘global.’” Wordy, I know. So let’s break it down.
Pangea is presenting (in collaboration with Teatro Del Pueblo) the spring 2018 production of Isla Tuliro, an original work by local playwright, Marlina Gonzales. The story follows that of the colonization of the Philippines (and histories of colonization across the globe), loss of language, and cultural erasure. The cast is representative of the cultures depicted in the play with the traditional dance numbers choreographed and performed by artists in the local Filipino community.
Not only that, but the play is performed in Tagalog, Spanish, English, and hybrids of all. Isla Tuliro, by representing numerous cultural and racial backgrounds through the cast, languages spoken, and authentic depictions of cultural traditions, highlights numerous aesthetics from around the globe, thus crafting this “multi-aesthetic environment.” Allowing for a “multi-aesthetic environment” gives space to showcase the intersectionalities between culture/race/language. The play is not just Filippinx, it is also Latinx. It speaks to gender in that most of the cast is female (a few actors are considered matriarchs within their communities) and the majority of the female characters’ roles center around them fighting numerous invading, male forces.
In simpler terms, Pangea strives to create works that authentically represent the cultures and aesthetics that they feature. They further deepen this by addressing the intersectionalities of culture within systemic oppressions.
The goal is to create what Dipanker called “layers of evolution” in which “global” is more than white aesthetic and is deepened by asking if it includes gender aesthetic, cultural aesthetic, etc. If “global” implies a white, patriarchal model, we must include and highlight multiple aesthetics in order to challenge that meaning. How do we center this? As of now, at the center sits the white/male/written, yet, in Dipanker’s words, “We come from People of Color, oral, matriarchal. And that is in the margins.”
Step One: break down the margins, the first layer being the politics of how to include multiple aesthetics. Pangea does this by collaborating with local artists and communities (such as the case with Isla Tuliro).
By breaking down the margins (whether that is through artistic collaboration, community outreach, etc.), space is created between communities which allows for mutual support. These communities can work together toward mutual liberation and joy while centering the work or the art. Through this collaboration, genuine global art, and in Pangea’s case performance, is created.
This piece is part of a series written by college undergraduates enrolled in off-campus study programs through the Higher Education Consortium for Urban Affairs (HECUA). HECUA programs offer students a chance to think deeply about the issues that matter most, and we’d like to share a piece of that experience with you. Every student post on the HECUA Medium page considers a theory or reading that intersects with that student’s lived experience. For more information about HECUA programs, click here.
