Matthew William Decoursey

Stultification and the negotiation of meaning: drama for second language education in Hong Kong schools

ABSTRACT Jacques Rancière has given us a strong ethical framework for the use of drama in education, but his model is incomplete. In Hong Kong, an examination-driven system often conflicts with teachers’ idealistic ambitions. We suggest a way of expanding Rancière’s model with reference to Étienne Wenger. We use this framework to examine a group of student teachers on practicum. Student teachers can use drama in the interstices by a process understandable on Wenger’s terms, and successful on Rancière’s terms. We use Wenger’s terms ‘alignment’, ‘engagement’ and ‘imagination’ to characterise these student teachers’ search for meaning in teaching.

Perspectives on aesthetics and participation: quoting philosophers

Anyone doing applied theatre faces a problem. The goals of applied theatre may be addressed in other ways. One may learn about issues by reading books or surfing the Internet. One may develop ideas collectively by having a discussion. Why do drama and not something else? Answers to this question often tend to revolve around the word ‘aesthetics’. Initially, then, ‘aesthetics’ is a place-holder. We know from experience there is something that makes drama worthwhile, and we call it ‘aesthetics’ while we figure out what it is. Yet the term comes with baggage. There is a long history of writing about aesthetics covering at least 300 years, with each philosopher seeming to offer a redefinition of the term. The special issue of RIDE, ‘Perspectives on Aesthetics and Participation’ (20:1, 2015), provides an opportunity to take stock of the range of meanings that are attached to ‘aesthetics’ in applied theatre research today. Through the special issue, there are references to philosophical aesthetics. By this I mean the Eurocentric tradition of thinking on aesthetics, and indeed it is not obvious that the authors of this issue refer to any other tradition. Given the importance of aesthetics for statements of applied theatre’s value, it seems worthwhile to follow these references and see where they take us. From a wide array of ideas in the Eurocentric tradition, researchers of applied theatre represented in the special issue seem to refer most frequently to three areas of thinking in particular – aesthetic autonomy, the three-cornered relation connecting art, embodiment and emotion, and the framing of the relationship between aesthetics and politics. Colette Conroy’s introduction lays out a view of the general problem of aesthetics in applied theatre. She begins with the challenge to the whole idea of aesthetics that comes to us from social theory. Pierre Bourdieu ([1979] 1984) has influentially argued that aesthetic taste is a function of social class. From that point of view, the whole notion of aesthetic taste looks like a way for the prosperous to claim superiority over the poor. Conroy does not accept that this notion invalidates the idea of aesthetics, and turns to Bishop (2012) and Brighton (2006) to defend aesthetics as a productive site of discourse in applied theatre. Both Bishop and Brighton see negative consequences in the reduction of aesthetics to ethics and both argue for the autonomy of the artwork. Conroy ends with a discussion of Rancière ([2000] 2004). She quotes him – ‘For me, politics is about the establishment of a theatrical and artificial sphere’ – and goes on – ‘The artificiality of the sphere is crucial because it facilitates the transgression of social norms about who may speak or act.’ For Rancière, aesthetic experience is important because it allows us to overcome the ‘common-sense’ distinctions we make in dealing with the