Altogether the training was what I more or less expected it to be: a methodically well balanced and prepared workshop which offered me a whole range of new techniques, ideas and games. It showed me how to use TO in conflict transformation. Much of what David taught
is - maybe - intrinsically tied to his charismatic personality and rich experience. Nevertheless I hope I will be able to use methods and skills during peace work in the future. I got a clearer idea about how peace building can benefit from theatrical elements, especially TO.
I deeply appreciated David's concerns about an emotionally safe environment and his care for personal needs. He never made anybody do things he or she didn't feel happy with. I felt safe. That was inspiring. It is always challenging to meet a bunch of new people, especially in theatre works where one gets involved on an emotional level. but the group - despite its wide range of experience, age and engagement - was able to cope with the challenge. that is due to the work that every single one of us put in, but also because of David's enthusiasm and sensitivity, I would say.
Although I understood David's approach to somehow break through the barrier between "oppressor" and "oppressed" with his Theatre for Living, he didn't convince me with rigorous attempt to make the theatre a forum for the solution of every imaginable (social) problem. He decided for him, so it seems to me, that the community and with it the people on, behind and around the stage are the ones who have the answers and solutions to all the questions. He mentioned for example an experience out of his own work where a former Guatemalan death squad member encountered the mother of a victim of death squad violence! From David's point of view it seems logical that the theatrical forum is the way where these two people can encounter each other, if they really want to do this. Why should any expert, let's say a psychologist or an attorney, be more helpful to them and their struggles than the democratic "agora" or the "mystic cycle" of a First Nations traditional community? This idea is - in all its radicalness - tempting, I have to admit. But I still believe that there are taboos. Not everything should be dealt with on stage.
[Utz Ebertz, Berlin]
is - maybe - intrinsically tied to his charismatic personality and rich experience. Nevertheless I hope I will be able to use methods and skills during peace work in the future. I got a clearer idea about how peace building can benefit from theatrical elements, especially TO.
I deeply appreciated David's concerns about an emotionally safe environment and his care for personal needs. He never made anybody do things he or she didn't feel happy with. I felt safe. That was inspiring. It is always challenging to meet a bunch of new people, especially in theatre works where one gets involved on an emotional level. but the group - despite its wide range of experience, age and engagement - was able to cope with the challenge. that is due to the work that every single one of us put in, but also because of David's enthusiasm and sensitivity, I would say.
Although I understood David's approach to somehow break through the barrier between "oppressor" and "oppressed" with his Theatre for Living, he didn't convince me with rigorous attempt to make the theatre a forum for the solution of every imaginable (social) problem. He decided for him, so it seems to me, that the community and with it the people on, behind and around the stage are the ones who have the answers and solutions to all the questions. He mentioned for example an experience out of his own work where a former Guatemalan death squad member encountered the mother of a victim of death squad violence! From David's point of view it seems logical that the theatrical forum is the way where these two people can encounter each other, if they really want to do this. Why should any expert, let's say a psychologist or an attorney, be more helpful to them and their struggles than the democratic "agora" or the "mystic cycle" of a First Nations traditional community? This idea is - in all its radicalness - tempting, I have to admit. But I still believe that there are taboos. Not everything should be dealt with on stage.
[Utz Ebertz, Berlin]
