Irena Risti

"The Game of Questions" is a research project focused on analysis of the issues that Bitef Polyphony offered and raised this year. During and after each event, questions from the visitors and participants were collected. Some of the questions were topic-related, appearing as a reflection of the events themselves, and some were new (sometimes quite personal!) in which curiosity became the trigger for debate, or guidelines for the new programme tasks. The questions were collected as a material that directly speaks about the reactions to the offered content, and indirectly about the needs and expectations of the audience - when it comes to young audience, those are precisely psychological needs , sometimes not visible and difficult to detect since they belong to the dynamic part of the image resulting in social interaction, this time with the stimuli of the 'polyphonic' content.

Examining: A. How did this years BP programme affect the audience? Which and what kind of questions were raised?
B.

What are the questions that contemporary theatre for the young should be dealing with today? According to the starting point, the research consists of two parts. Part 1 deals with the reflections and evaluation of the offered contents Ad (B), whereas part 2 relates to the tasks of the contemporary theatre for the young Ad (A). As the additional part the questions raised at the round tables and discussions, whose participants were the experts and artists who use contemporary theatre techniques when working with the young or marginalized groups, were collected.

Sample: 153 respondents (both genders, age 14-62 , BP audience: highschool students and experts working with the young) Stimulii: 7 plays performed at this year Bitef Polyphony. Pazi vamo! (Listen to this) September 14th 2011 at 4 p.m. , Boko Buha Theatre (Ne)vidljivi grad ((In)Visible City) September 15th 2011 at 5 p.m., at the bus line 26. rtve ljubavi (Victims of Love) September 16th 2011 at 5 p.m. , Boko Buha Theatre Hamletovi glumci (Hamlets Actors) September 17th 2011 at 5 p.m, at Center for Cultural Decontamination (CFCD). kola za sve (School for Everyone) September 18th 2011 at 5 p.m., at Cultural Institution Vuk

Biti ili ne biti ena (To Be, or not to Be a Woman)September 19th 2011 , at 5 p.m., at Cultural Institution Vuk Odabrani se bude (The Chosen Ones Awake) September 21st 2011, at 5 p.m., at CFKD Roma Siam September 23rd, 2011, 5 p.m., at Bitef Theatre Data collection: oral survey

After each play, the interviewers did short surveys with the visitors (individually or in small groups). After several introductory questions (Did you like the play? Were you intrigued by it? What were you thinking about while watching?), the interviewers asked the respondents to transform their thoughts into question/s. (How would your ideas and questions look like in the interrogatory form?) If some of the interviewees hesitated to give the answer, or if the task seemed too complicated for them, the interviewers tried to help the respondents and alleviate the given task (without direct induction, though), so none of the interviewees refused to take part. The procedure which requested posing the questions was applied with the aim of recording the impressions and stimulating and engaging visitors in the specific game related to personal impressions about the play and articulation of the offered thematic challenges. Beside the questions collected by surveying the visitors, there were also those raised during the discussions after each play.

All collected data were recorded and analyzed by standardized qualitative research techniques.

In the first part of the research, 215 questions were generated. They can be divided into 8 thematic units:
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

Attitudes toward otherness and marginalized groups (14.9 %) Attitudes toward discriminatory models within discriminated groups (26.5 %) Potential for change(14.,9 %) System of values(13 %) Violence within the young peer groups (6.1 %) Clash with reality (3.7 %) Identity (3.3 %) Other (5.2 %)

1.

Attitudes toward otherness and marginalized groups (issues of discrimination and prejudices) Within this category, most of the questions were related to Roma people discrimination, which was connected to the thematic focus of this year BP. The examples of such questions are: Why are some Roma people ashamed to say who they are? , Why arent they accepted?, How to decrease underestimation?, What are the sources of prejudices toward Roma people ?, Why are we alone in the streets? (the question by a Roma girl ). Beside the questions regarding ethnic distance, the questions related to any minority or minority beliefs survival within peer group were raised: How to survive in a society, still remaining different from others?

Scenes from School for Everyone

Most of these questions were generated after the plays School for Everyone and Roma Siam.

2. Attitudes toward discriminatory models within

discriminated groups
Collected questions within this category suggest specific discrimination pyramid in which the victims are mostly Roma women and children, especially Roma girls: Why Roma women have less rights then Roma men?, Why Roma girls must marry so early? Why Roma people act that way?, How to prevent forced marriage?, How to prevent Roma people from exploiting their own children? Certain number of questions related directly to the lack of choices: Why did Roma girl leave her baby?and Was there any other solution?, but they were also related to the lack of education, and early school leaving: Do you know any Roma girl who finished school?, or How to educate Roma children more about sexually transmitted diseases? The questions regarding some other types of subdiscriminatory practice were also added: the problems of actors belonging to non-institutional groups, or non-visibility of participatory artistic practice within the civil sector. The majority of the questions were generated by the plays School for Everyone and Victims of Love.

Scenes from Victims of Love

3.

Potential for change

The questions within this category problematize potential for change regarding the bugs in the system and various social paradoxes in Serbia today. They mostly relate to the general potential for social change and possible mechanisms, but they are dominated by the sense of fear, doubt and worry: Has anything changed in the end? Did the son accept his Roma father?, How to introduce Roma women with human rights? How to increase their self-respect?, How to break the quagmire and closed circle in which we live? , How to motivate Roma people to work on themselves?, Do they really believe that something will change after this play?, Who are the people who could help Roma women? What is interesting is that only one question bore selfreflection regarding personal responsibility: What could I do to change the attitude toward Roma women and early marriage? ( The Second Economy School student, age 17) The majority of this year BP plays triggered questions of this type. (6 out of 8 plays)
Scenes from The chosen ones awake

4.

System of values
The questions within this category problematize value orientation among peer and minority groups and mostly relate to the search of the causes of actual situation, for example: Do young girls prefer football hooligans? , What are the causes for this?, What can channge this system of values within a society? , Why is the mother more concerned about her daughters virginity than about the fact that she murdered the woman?, Why Roma people think that only virgins are good women? , What makes a good reputation? ...

5.

Violence within the young peer groups

The questions relate to different types of physical and psychological molestation and the increase of violence rate in schools, for example : Why nobody reacts to the scenes of viloence?, What should a professor do when he sees opression in a class? ,Why do football hooligans break windowshops? ,What generates violence in a society? How can it be stopped? Most of the questions in this category were generated by the play Listen to This!

Scenes fromListen to this!

6.

Clash with reality

The questions within this category suggest high rate of misunderstanding and ignorance of the context, for example:Do such things truly happen in real life? , What is the real proportion of this in our society?, Is this the real image of our society or it is a bit exaggerated? The collected questions imply the lack of information and increasing segregation in Serbian society.

7.

Identity
The lesser number of questions relate to rather selfanalysis induced by symbolical potential of the play, for example: Out of the three characters, which one is the most similar to me? What kind of person am I?, What is my/our attitude towards the state and nature?, Do we have a right to throw away tenderness? If I throw it away, does it mean that it suppresses me?
Scenes fromRoma Siam

8.

Other
The questions that cannot be categorized in any of the recognized categories.
Scenes from To be or not to be a woman

Actors creative process(15,8 %)

There were questions that could not be connected to any of the offered topics, since they relate to the creative process of the participants: working methods, artistic experiences, methodological/production framework of the play. It is quite understandable since it is considered that Bitef Polyphony performances attract both young artists and activists. The examples of such questions are: What are the actors impressions in terms of the working process itself?, How long did it take to prepare the performance?, When traveling abroad, do you involve local groups? To what extent? , How important was the work on this play for you, and what will you do next?, Did this play change something in you?...

Scenes from(In)visible city

Lack of information / insufficient clarity of the plot (7,9%)

There were also questions signifying the problems of cognitive clarity and elusiveness of authors intentions or his lack of skills in terms of story building (Who murdered who and why?). One specific play generated the greatest number of such questions, which will be elaborated later on.

Discrimination within discrimination groups Attitudes toward otherness Potential for change System of values Violence within the young peer groups Clash with reality Identity

Are there any Red Star* fans in How to protect the group? children in Roma How come that parents communities from prefer money to their Could it be early and forced children welfare? different? marriage? What will What do you happen with his think about Do Roma children education? Will Roma people Why did he let complain to their head he continue with now, after the his children have teacher when they are it? play? the same badly treated by Why do Roma professors? Why not? Do you think you destiny as his? people so strictly initiated any stick to their How to protect How to behave change? tradition and Roma women when it comes to why is it above who would the encounter with any relationship? confront to mal- Do you have football hooligans Roma friends? treatment by or some incident? How hard is it to Have I grown old so Why not? their collect the data the scene with Lady community? about the behaviour Macbeth moved me Where could of all these people? so much? they go?

How to find a way out of chaos and entropy? How to stop Roma men having more rights than Roma women?

School for Everyone Victims of Love Listen to This! Roma Sijam

Fewest thematic questions were generated after the play Hamlets actors. At the same time, this play stands out by the number of the questions relating to cognitive clarity (more than a half are doubts and guesses about the authors intentions), and the questions express the need for the plot explanations: Who are the king and the queen?, Why Ophelia committed suicide?, Why was there a coffin?, Why we had to salute to the king and then he was beaten and taken out?. The findings imply significant disharmony of the semantic potential and even quality in comparison to other Bitef Polyphony plays. The plays Invisible City, To Be, or Not to Be a Woman and The Chosen Ones Awake generated a great number of questions related to the actors creative process and methodology approach. It is notable how the work of professional actors triggered curiosity in terms of theatrical experiences, impressions and working methods, whereas the plays in which the main actors were young people and high school students provoked some important social issues (although they were influenced by the coordinators and creators of the programme who had worked with them)

Scenes from Hamlets Actors

The findings signify the problem-oriented, intriguing and semantically rich programme. Not only the ambitions aimed at the elaboration of Roma people discrimination issues were achieved, but there were contents that sparked off several thematic flows, among which the issue of sub-discriminatory practice (discrimination within discriminated groups) was the most striking and most evident in terms of incidence. Mostly responsible for this were the plays School for everyone and Victims of love and they generated the greatest number of questions on this Bitef Polyphony. Valuable thematic segments that complement the programme focus are the issues of aggression and value orientation mostly occurring in the questions generated after the play Listen to this! Almost all plays triggered the questions related to the potential of change and where it could be found. Although some of the questions seemed pessimistic, it is certain that BP raised them, which can be seen as a precondition for future actions. As expected, a great number of detected questions included methodological challenges in the contemporary theatre processes. Artists creative processes including specific techniques when working with the young and/or marginalized groups are very attractive and provoke curiosity of all who share similar interests and who have been attending BP programmes for years now. (total number of atenders in 2011: 1050

Sample: 46 respondents (both genders, age 14-65, BP audience: participants, visitors and experts working with the young) Data collection: oral survey method: after the opening, and after each BP performance, the interviewers posed a question to selected respondents:What are the questions that contemporary theatre for the young should be dealing with today? Every respondent had the opportunity to pose one or more questions. When selecting the respondents the attention was paid to having a balanced ratio of the young, experts working with the young and representatives of other vocations.

91 questions were collected, and they can be grouped in 8 categories:

1.

Identity and communication problems (+ controversies related to modern communication types) (34,1%) Value orientation of the young (17,6%), Attitude toward culture (artifacts) and education (12,1%) Attitude toward otherness (prejudices and discrimination issues) (11 %) Attitude toward future (11 %) Freedom and the lack of choice (5,5 %) Substance abuse (4,4 %) Other (4,4 %)

2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

Identity and communication problems Value orientation Attitudes toward culture and education Attitudes toward otherness Future issue Freedom and Lack of Choice Drugs

1.

Identity and communication problems The questions within this category relate to identity formation side by side with the development of modern communication types and all controversies occurring with these changes: Who am I here? What do they want from me? How should I give? How should I receive? How should I express my feelings? How do you perceive me? How do I perceive you? What do modern types of communication bring? Does internet create false self image and neglects true potentials of a person? How does it affect relationships, love, friendship..? What/who is my avatar at school, at home, with my friends?

More than one third of the respondents posed at least one of such questions as the key ones .The questions often overlapped forming a complex set ( as a type of detected syndrome)

2.

Value orientation of the young ...was quite often recognized in the

questions that the respondents perceived as relevant basis for new dramatic forms, for example: What is a value of life today? Why and in what situations the young have no idea regarding some deeper concepts: what kind of a person will I become? Do they (the young) create or consume ideology? What are their values and what is their attitude toward information served by the media? What do current cultural models impose? What is good and what is bad? What is healthy and what is sick? Who decides about what is good and nice? What values our society takes as important but only declaratively, while behaving contrariwise?

3.

Attitude toward culture (artifacts) and education

This is the only category in which the questions were posed only by the adults, and they show a certain level of resignation due to disrespect of values admired by the respondents, and/or which are taken per se, for example: Why the young do not go to theatre any more? Why the young today dont read? What is the connection between education and the quality of life? Do ostensible information or plethora of half-information bring them back to the level of cave men because the potentials are neglected or not recognized? l

4.

Attitude toward otherness

Certain number of questions problematize prejudices toward minority groups, especially Roma people, for example: What stands behind intolerance toward Roma people? Are Roma people asked about anything? Are we different and why? Am I essentially different from a Roma person , a person in a wheel chair, or someone having different sexual orientation? Do different people have their place in a society? It can be assumed that the questions were ramifications of the offered programme contents (some of the respondents attended several performances), and partly because the respondents were professionally involved with working with vulnerable groups.

5.

Attitude toward future

The questions within this category relate to life decisions and existence in near and later future, for example: How to become independent, make money and maintain personal integrity in late capitalism? Where should I go if I dont feel good here?, What to do next in this country after finishing school?, How can I find my place in this world?, What awaits the young and how can they cope with it?, How to ensure the future?, How can we protect ourselves from everything that will come? Although they bare different meanings the questions from this category resemble those from the category potential for change because the feelings of worry and fear can be recognized.

6.

Freedom and the lack of choice

Within this category there are questions that relate to recognition and definition of freedom, mostly in the context of imposed cultural models, for example: What is freedom?. How to choose freely?, Do the young search for different options?, Do they try to expend the options?, What is their attitude toward the lack of options?

7.

Substance abuse
The lesser number of questions generated by high school students raised the problem of addiction problems among the young: What do narcotics give?, How do drug abusers influence our society, and how should we treat them?

According to the estimation by the audience, the essential issues in the dramatic structures for the young should be of identity-communication type in the context of specific technological development that determines the needs of the new digital generations of the young. The questions of value orientation were also raised, including the attitude toward otherness determined by imposed cultural models- evaluation shows that these questions were raised during this years programme, and it is certain that they require special attention in the future. There are also significant universal themes such as freedom, my future and individualsociety relation, but again in the context of current social paradoxes and limited choices threatening the new generations of the young. It is certain that this years BP offered some important questions, partly analyzed them and raised some new ones. They should be followed and seen into. Guidelines for 2012 are relatively clear and expectations are just increasing!

As appendix, the questions raised during the round tables and professional discussions were collected: 16.09. 2011. 12:00 PROCESSES AND PRODUCTS OF THE THEATRE FOR SOCIAL CHANGES Panel discussion dedicated to the use of theatre techniques when working with the young from vulnerable groups (moderator: Milena Bogavac) 17.09. 2011. 12:00 MARGINALIZATION AS A CHALLENGE Conference and presentation of the project Educational theatre and drama as a tool to facilitate Roma inclusion (moderator: Ljubica Beljanski-Risti) 22. 09. 2011. 17:00 WHERE NOBODY GOES, ABOUT WHAT NOBODY SPEAKS Round table about experiences and achievements of applied theatre in Serbia (moderators: Marko Pejovi and Aleksandra Jeli) The following questions are not categorized and grouped , and there are no frequency analysis. The intention was only to register ALL important questions raised during the discussions.

1.

2. 3. 4.

5. 6. 7.

What is the difference between working with the young in drama studio and working with children belonging to vulnerable groups (children from Face of the street*), or with intentionally gathered actors of forum theatre? To what extent and how the application of drama techniques change adopted models and attitudes of students and their perception of self? How to determine a target group when launching a project that deals with specific social issue, especially in repertory theatres? Is there antagonism between professional artists and experts in the civil sector working in the field of psycho-social support? In what way do their methods and attitudes differ? Does this polarization lead to dogmatism? How the problems we are trying to solve become the tool for causing the same problems? Who can make art? Is it a human right or a right of professionals? Process or product? What is more important? Why are the quality and effects of the product as much as important as those of the process?

8. 9. 10. 11.

12.

11. 12. 13.

Why is the work with groups of homogenous structure more frequent than those of mixed structure? What are the results of these limitations? How to choose and/or create drama methods when working with marginalized groups? Are the experts and artists essentially distanced from the real problems they are trying to solve? To what extent they follow the needs and personal interest of the people they work with, and to what extent they are led by the public opinion or by their own, already formed, beliefs? When people get engaged in this types of programme, what are their expectations? Do all participants know what they engage in and would they do it again if they knew in advance? Do we understand different cultures? Are we really ready to accept different beliefs? Is education a value? Inclusion or assimilation; what do we actually deal with when working for/with Roma people? To what extent the marginalization within marginalized groups can be recognized??

15. 16.

17. 18. 19. 20.

21.

How do we determine groups we belong to? Why are the differences in ourselves, essentially internalized, being negated? (Why is the principle of social equality considered the same as wiping out every kind of personal/experiential differences? To what extent denying the differences threatens the basic humanistic principles that our work is based on?) How to deal with the dictate of political correctness in the project development and in the creative process? What is the motivation of those working with the marginalized groups, using techniques of applied theatre? Do we recognize potential abuse in our ranks? Do artists and experts who use the techniques of applied theatre do anything regarding the system or political change? Why not? What do they perceive as the key aim of their engagement? Is this type of work important for an individual, and is there a recognized need at all for this kind of practice to be realized?

Palace of questions must be rebuilt. Petrified standard images of questions should be relived with fresh breath, and hearing senses renewed. Imagination must not be imprisoned. Causal relationships must exist. Out of all our coincidences, necessities are to be drawn again. Peter Handke, 1989.