Feminists, Gender, and Hir- Oh My!

This week, much like last week with race, made me wish that we had more time to discuss gender studies.  I see a class in my future, because I feel like we only begin to scratch the surface, and I personally would like to delve deeper into this realm.  However, if I had to sum up what’s been bubbling in my brain for the past few weeks, my takeaway would be the questioning or re-examination of the definitions I had recognized up until now.  While I know that feminism is an evolving concept, I think I was perhaps still looking at the wave of what Dolan coined, “cultural feminism.”  My mom and my aunt were cultural feminists, touting “Our Bodies, Our Selves,” and educating me about Gloria Steinem, Planned Parenthood, and the Women’s Lib movement.  What I suppose I didn’t recognize was that cultural feminism tended to be more exclusive to Caucasian women.   hooks makes an interesting point in demonstrating the label of feminism being construed as a negative.  This made me remember a brief conversation I had with my stepmother when I was in undergrad.  I was taking a women studies class and I, thinking I was offering a compliment to a wonderfully strong woman, called her a feminist.  She narrowed her eyes at me and said, “Míja- I’m not a feminist.”  Which threw me for a loop, admittedly.  But what I didn’t recognize (and what my dad pointed out to me late was much like the reading from bell hooks.  She, as a Chicana American woman felt that she would be “isolated” from our family/culture if she supported the feminist movement- even though she is an advocate for woman’s rights.  It was clear that her definition of feminism was different from mine, and my dad further pointed out that the term, “feminist” is usually associated with the word “lesbian” in our culture.  Ugh.  I aimed to re-educate them, but at 19, I didn’t have the proper knowledge to make a convincing argument, I suppose.   In having the privilege of hearing Jack Halberstam speak this week, I was introduced to yet another concept- trans-feminism.  This refers to a movement by and for trans persons who view their liberation to be intrinsically linked to the liberation of all women and beyond.  He also points out that gender variation is something that everyone should be thinking about.  There were many fabulous corollaries I left with, but my biggest one was that gender isn’t binary.  So there.  Deal with it. 

So, now that I’m reminded that gender as not simply male or female and race as not simply labels like Latinx or Asian, the idea of universality shifts.  In widening the lens of my own gaze as an artist, I must be attentive and remind others to do the same.  If you had asked me before I started grad school what an example of universal theatre was, I would have had a very different answer.  I probably would have thrown out a show like All My Sons or A Raisin in the Sun. But while the overall definition for universal might be “of, relating to, or characteristic of all or the whole”, it’s annotation can be characterized many different ways.  For example, universal can also generally mean applicable everywhere or in all cases.  Or, more specifically, affecting, concerning, or involving all or used/understood by all.  So, in answer to the question posed, no.  I can’t think of a piece of theatre or film that I could name as universal.  And as far as making a piece of theatre, I think it does require something deeper.  I’m just not sure exactly what that is.  Schulman’s point that American theatre is unable to serve its audience “until it decides to expand what is known about being alive, instead of endlessly repeating already established paradigms.”   Unfortunately, the excavation of the text coupled with taking the time to educate the theatre company, cast, and crew on the issues that may arise in staging a play that “un-straightens” the gender norms, is something that most companies are, frankly, too lazy to do.  There’s a lot of complacency, both at the university and professional level in which the gatekeepers use the “we’ve always done it this way” excuse.  If a company has an established subscriber base, they usually fight even more against change- because they want to “give the people what they want.”  But I would hypothesize that having a subscriber base gives you the opportunity to try and tweak the system.  Stacy Wolf brings up Berkowitz point of the difference of giving “an audience what it wanted,” or guiding “an audience, carefully and gradually into wanting what was offered.”  So, what if Hir is what’s being offered?

While I wouldn’t say that Hir is precisely a universal play, it definitely is close.  It has so many universal themes: the struggle for equality, the loss of innocence/disillusionment of adulthood, the conflict between parents and children, human being’s lack of humanity, a rebellious human being’s confrontation with society, in individual’s struggle toward understanding, awareness, and/or spiritual enlightenment.  We, of course, see these themes in a lot of great literature, as well as in the two plays I mentioned earlier.  Hir focuses so beautifully on this themes that having a transgender character is almost secondary to the narrative. But, the absurd realism style might be what doesn’t work for the people who have season tickets to the Musical Theatre series at the local performing arts center.  So, if we’re looking at the idea of universality being understood by all, the fact that there is a stylistic rather than realistic theatrical choice as well as a character who is trans (which unfortunately, as you know is looked on as sinful or unnatural to some), the play can’t be categorized as universal.  A smart media person could put the “universal themes” spin on it to get butts in the seats.  And hopefully, people would love the play as much as I and my cohort seemed to.  But, some of my 1025 students may not.  It’s tough.

Shakespeare is often hailed as having the most universal plays.  This is probably because he utilizes the most universal themes I mentioned, plus romantic love, love lost, revenge, etc.  We discussed briefly in class the idea of a female Hamlet- which has been done by some of the major festivals.  But was it done well?  Was the time taken to truly examine the discrepancies throughout the play by having a woman play Hamlet instead of a man?  How does this change the character dynamics throughout the play?  I would posit that it would change things drastically, but that it is doable.  But I think what tends to happen is that the company gains praise for being “daring” enough the cast a woman as the Dane, and that’s as far as it goes.  Rather than delving in to the changes that casting could bring and the conversations that could be started, the company uses it as a marking tool and pats themselves on the back for more inclusive casting.  Meanwhile, other female actors like myself are frustrated, while close-minded ticket holders question why Hamlet wasn’t a man “like when they did the show a few years ago.”  The adage of, “you can’t please all the people all the time, keeps coming to mind. 

http://www.westword.com/arts/colorado-shakespeare-festival-casts-a-woman-as-hamlet-9131544

To sum up from my over-flowing mind- themes can be universal, but I don’t know if a play can be definitively so.  In order to try and create a truly universal piece of theatre, we will have to vigilantly continue to have the conversation about race and gender.  This does mean taking the gloves off and speaking truth to power when it comes to season selection and staying true to mission.  We indeed must break the system, and rebuild the definitions to be ever-flexible and evolving.  To credit Schulman’s idea, we must “make this conversation mainstream instead of forbidden.”