Co-creation in theatre: an antidote to controversy in democracy?

When dis­cussing ecol­o­gy, pol­i­tics or var­i­ous social issues, have you ever felt like you were talk­ing to a brick wall? The use and mis­use of pes­ti­cides in agri­cul­ture or the role of tech­nol­o­gy in com­bat­ing glob­al warm­ing, for exam­ple. In an increas­ing­ly polarised soci­ety, debat­ing with peo­ple who do not share our val­ues can some­times become impos­si­ble. This trend is ampli­fied by the pro­lif­er­a­tion of “echo cham­bers”¹, spaces where we only inter­act with peo­ple who share our beliefs. This has giv­en rise to a new dis­ci­pline: the soci­ol­o­gy of con­tro­ver­sy, which stud­ies dif­fer­ent points of view and the con­texts in which they are expressed. So how can we re-estab­lish dialogue?

This ques­tion is cen­tral to the research con­duct­ed by Sylvie Bouchet, a doc­tor of psy­chol­o­gy and lec­tur­er at Paris Dauphine Uni­ver­si­ty, and Olivi­er Fournout, a senior lec­tur­er in com­mu­ni­ca­tion sci­ences at the Inter­dis­ci­pli­nary Insti­tute for Innovation/CNRS at Télé­com Paris (IP Paris). In Le Champ des pos­si­bles², they study how the col­lec­tive cre­ation of a play can help to re-estab­lish dia­logue with­in pop­u­la­tions frag­ment­ed by intense con­flicts. The project takes the form of artis­tic pro­duc­tions car­ried out in 2018 by groups of pro­fes­sion­als – farm­ers, envi­ron­men­tal activists, entre­pre­neurs, experts, pub­lic and pri­vate sec­tor admin­is­tra­tors, and asso­ci­a­tion lead­ers – all active­ly involved in a con­tro­ver­sial issue. The aim was to work togeth­er to cre­ate 25-minute plays focus­ing on divi­sive issues such as pes­ti­cides in agri­cul­ture and the impact of tech­nol­o­gy on glob­al warm­ing. Those involved were giv­en free rein to stage their own plays, which they write and per­form themselves.

Two years after its cre­ation, half of the par­tic­i­pants con­sid­er that some­thing has changed in the way they view them­selves in rela­tion to the controversy.

The book is accom­pa­nied by the results of a sur­vey of par­tic­i­pants, which aimed to assess how the joint cre­ative work had “changed their per­cep­tion of the debate, the oth­er pro­tag­o­nists and the facts of the issue”³. In addi­tion, a sec­ond sur­vey⁴ was con­duct­ed in July 2020 to detail the long-term effects of the expe­ri­ence. Among the find­ings: two years after the cre­ation, “half of the par­tic­i­pants (56%) think that some­thing has changed in the way they posi­tion them­selves on the con­tro­ver­sial issue⁵,” and the mul­ti­ple lev­els of change are specified.

Olivi­er Fournout. The start­ing point is the obser­va­tion that in our soci­eties, divi­sions and con­tro­ver­sy are con­stant­ly fuelled by the media and social net­works. There are divi­sions and irrec­on­cil­able dif­fer­ences. When faced with any real­i­ty – even sci­en­tif­ic and recog­nised ones – we are drawn into spi­rals of vio­lence, both polit­i­cal­ly and eth­i­cal­ly. Dif­fer­ent groups of peo­ple in con­flict no longer talk to each oth­er, or only talk to those who share their views, ignor­ing what is hap­pen­ing around them. These divid­ed soci­eties are stud­ied by the soci­ol­o­gy of controversy.

Based on this obser­va­tion, my per­spec­tive has been to help cit­i­zens and stu­dents engage with con­tro­ver­sial issues in order to under­stand their under­ly­ing caus­es and try to over­come them. After study­ing them and some­times expe­ri­enc­ing them first-hand, those involved take part in the cre­ation of a col­lec­tive the­atri­cal pro­duc­tion deal­ing with the issue. This approach is accom­pa­nied by a cen­tral research ques­tion: how does the process of col­lec­tive artis­tic cre­ation change the expe­ri­ence of the peo­ple involved? What can the­atre pro­duc­tion specif­i­cal­ly con­tribute in terms of rep­re­sent­ing issues, and how can this be made acces­si­ble to the audi­ence? Thanks to fund­ing from the ANR⁶, we were able to set up an empir­i­cal study of these effects, enabling us to make them the sub­ject of research.

I have used this the­atri­cal method­ol­o­gy more than 150 times: with stu­dents and cit­i­zens, but also, on sev­er­al occa­sions, with pro­fes­sion­al actress­es on the sub­ject of tran­shu­man­ism⁷. The col­lec­tive cre­ation process is well estab­lished. A 50-minute doc­u­men­tary filmed in 2018 recounts this process⁸. Each time, we start with a soci­etal phe­nom­e­non that has been stud­ied and/or expe­ri­enced. The cre­ation time is short. In two days, the par­tic­i­pants cre­ate a 20–25-minute play and per­form it in front of an audi­ence. There is a lot of impro­vi­sa­tion, includ­ing in the final per­for­mance. Peo­ple who, in most cas­es, have nev­er done the­atre before can find them­selves at ease impro­vis­ing and per­form­ing very accu­rate­ly, in a very live­ly and nat­ur­al way, as opposed to recit­ing a text they have learned by heart. The stag­ing choic­es, act­ing and text are left entire­ly up to the cre­ative groups. The facil­i­ta­tors pro­vide feed­back, but the group and its col­lec­tive dimen­sion always have the final say. The rules of the game are shared with the group in advance, and cre­ativ­i­ty flour­ish­es with­in this frame­work. I test­ed this col­lec­tive cre­ation for­mat for the first time in 2009, in a high­ly inno­v­a­tive course for the Corps des Mines, com­bin­ing field geol­o­gy, the­atre and obser­va­tion of group dynam­ics. This course, which still exists, gave rise to a paper in edu­ca­tion­al sci­ences in 2011⁹.

To return to the issue of mar­riage equal­i­ty, we pub­lished a research paper in 2017 with Valérie Beau­douin on this the­atri­cal pro­duc­tion that was staged in 2013¹⁰. What was par­tic­u­lar­ly strik­ing about the group of stu­dents who took part was that most of those who had vol­un­tar­i­ly signed up to drama­tise this con­tro­ver­sial issue were deeply con­cerned about the sub­ject. Stu­dents came to sign up say­ing that they could no longer dis­cuss it among them­selves and want­ed to open up the dia­logue. That’s why they signed up, and one stu­dent in par­tic­u­lar con­fid­ed that she felt very deeply about the sub­ject. This lent a spe­cial tone to the work done by this group of stu­dents, because it wasn’t just about study­ing the issue. The cre­ative process brought some­thing deeply felt to the surface.

For ques­tions about pes­ti­cides and whether tech­nol­o­gy helps or hin­ders the fight against cli­mate change, we had the means to con­duct a sur­vey and objec­tive­ly assess the effects on the par­tic­i­pants in the col­lec­tive cre­ation. The play on pes­ti­cides fea­tured an organ­ic farmer, anoth­er who treats his more than 100 hectares with glyphosate, a tech­ni­cal advi­sor for large farms, an envi­ron­men­tal activist, the head of an asso­ci­a­tion, a doc­tor reg­is­tered with an agri­cul­tur­al health insur­ance fund who is him­self a wine­grow­er. With this pan­el, we achieved the high­est pos­si­ble lev­el of rep­re­sen­ta­tion on the sub­ject. It was chal­leng­ing and uncom­pro­mis­ing, because there was a real divide at the out­set, with par­tic­i­pants afraid of being attacked. For exam­ple, the farmer who sprayed his fields with glyphosate thought he was going to be “lynched”. In a way, we have an empir­i­cal breed­ing ground where we start from a very dis­tant point in terms of divi­sion and the risk of hurt feelings.

For the play on mar­riage equal­i­ty, we were unable to con­duct a sur­vey of stu­dents on the col­lec­tive cre­ation process at the time, but the con­tent of the play itself reflects very pos­i­tive results. Although they didn’t agree with each oth­er at all, the stu­dents man­aged to draw a frieze with six dif­fer­ent rep­re­sen­ta­tions of cou­ples, which were pro­ject­ed dur­ing the play and which Valérie Beau­douin and I repro­duced in our arti­cle. In a way, the play gave birth to a mod­el of diver­si­ty, even though the stu­dents dis­agreed about these rep­re­sen­ta­tions in the pub­lic space. Anoth­er achieve­ment is the name the the­atre com­pa­ny gave itself, “the­atre for all”, which neat­ly sums up the uni­fy­ing pow­er of the­atre, in the same way that a Shake­speare play brings togeth­er Fal­staff and the future Hen­ry V in a tav­ern. In short, the stu­dents man­aged to find com­mon ground through the­atre, where the sub­ject mat­ter was divi­sive, which is both touch­ing and effective.

Chang­ing people’s minds is not some­thing that can be set as an imposed objec­tive. What we observed in our sec­ond sur­vey con­duct­ed in 2020 was that, after the col­lec­tive cre­ation process, there was a much bet­ter under­stand­ing of the con­text and log­ic behind oth­er people’s posi­tions, a sen­si­tiv­i­ty to per­son­al sto­ries and an open­ness to dia­logue with peo­ple with whom it had pre­vi­ous­ly been impos­si­ble to dis­cuss these issues. From expo­sure to oppos­ing posi­tions, ini­tial­ly per­ceived as the worst ene­mies in the con­flict, empa­thy and emo­tion even­tu­al­ly emerge, which is a fan­tas­tic result. Fan­tas­tic, because this ini­tial result paves the way for cog­ni­tive advances: two years after the exper­i­ment, 70% of par­tic­i­pants said they had learned things in terms of “reflec­tion” and “thoughts”.

The key point here is undoubt­ed­ly the process of the­atri­cal cre­ation, which brings togeth­er peo­ple who no longer talk to each oth­er in real life and cre­ates a com­mon object around which dia­logue can take place. Indeed, the con­tro­ver­sial ele­ments of the play, such as the theme of pes­ti­cides, are inter­twined with the oblig­a­tion to cre­ate a play togeth­er. This oblig­a­tion, which is stronger than the sub­jects of dis­agree­ment, makes it pos­si­ble to rebuild rela­tion­ships, or to build what I call in the book a “rela­tion­al ecol­o­gy”, which becomes the con­di­tion for any real progress. In short, we must first work on the ecol­o­gy of human rela­tions to achieve results in the ecol­o­gy of nature, which requires everyone’s con­tri­bu­tion in the search for solu­tions. The the­atri­cal process makes it pos­si­ble to restore a form of alliance to suc­cess­ful­ly co-cre­ate the play – a play which is itself a dia­logue that address­es the root of the problem.

One of the lim­i­ta­tions of the approach is that the­atre is a very ephemer­al dis­ci­pline that requires a lot of resources to be per­formed again. For exam­ple, we staged two plays in the Deux-Sèvres region, in part­ner­ship with a CNRS agroe­col­o­gy “Zone Ate­lier” (Cen­tre d’Étude Biologique de la Forêt de Chizé) and WISION, a com­pa­ny spe­cial­is­ing in medi­a­tion in rur­al areas. The sub­ject was the rela­tion­ship between farm­ers and local res­i­dents. The plays were cre­at­ed and per­formed by farm­ers and local res­i­dents, joined by a few stu­dents. The two plays we filmed¹¹ went very well, and we part­ed ways say­ing that we should per­form them again. How­ev­er, the will and resources to do so are not nec­es­sar­i­ly there, and find­ing venues is dif­fi­cult. It is a very pow­er­ful process on an exis­ten­tial, emo­tion­al and affec­tive lev­el, involv­ing the body, but one that is not eas­i­ly repeated.

We need mech­a­nisms that work on rela­tion­ships in order to then work on changes in prac­tices and values.

In 2020, in the midst of the COVID lock­down, we set up a dia­logue plat­form called ZigZa­g­Zoom¹² with Cyrille Bom­bard, who works as a social medi­a­tor. We bring togeth­er three peo­ple in favour of a posi­tion and three peo­ple against it, with a par­tic­i­pa­to­ry audi­ence of ten to fif­teen peo­ple. We always come to the same con­clu­sion: changes in behav­iour and atti­tudes can only come about if we first work on the rela­tion­al ground­work. This result is prob­a­bly gen­er­al­is­able. It is not expert dis­course, how­ev­er numer­ous and com­pe­tent, that brings about change. If it did, many prob­lems would already have been solved. What does bring about change, how­ev­er, is first and fore­most build­ing rela­tion­ships based on mutu­al under­stand­ing. We need mech­a­nisms that work on rela­tion­ships to then work on chang­ing prac­tices and values.

The par­tic­i­pants in our 2020 sur­vey were dis­ap­point­ed by the frame­work of the exper­i­ment, which they had expect­ed to sup­port them after the col­lec­tive the­atre expe­ri­ence. This is indeed a lim­i­ta­tion that I have not been able to address, as the research is high­ly depen­dent on fund­ing that is lim­it­ed in time and per project. When fund­ing stops, there is no fol­low-up because resources are sud­den­ly cut off. For exam­ple, I can no longer work with my col­league, a social medi­a­tor who would like to con­tin­ue the effort to anchor the changes that have been ini­ti­at­ed and keep the pro­gramme alive over the long term.

In our 2018 play about pes­ti­cides, a new mytho­log­i­cal char­ac­ter appeared: “the lit­tle sick field”. This char­ac­ter was cre­at­ed by the troupe. It is not men­tioned in any of the ency­clopae­dias of the imag­i­na­tion that I have con­sult­ed. It is a cre­ation from this play which may one day change the world. Plac­ing a fic­tion­al device such as “the lit­tle sick field” at the cen­tre of the sto­ry is already a way of learn­ing how to heal it. See­ing is already doing, as research on mir­ror neu­rons tends to show¹³. Thus, fic­tion­al actions on a the­atre stage, espe­cial­ly when they have been cre­at­ed by the very peo­ple involved in society’s prob­lems, open the way to over­com­ing divi­sions. They inspire us to build a com­mon future togeth­er. This is undoubt­ed­ly a nec­es­sary and essen­tial con­di­tion for solv­ing problems.

Interview by Lucille Caliman