How are the culture wars impacting diversity in theatre?

In an earlier piece in this series, I wrote about a feeling in some quarters that the sector has “gone too far” on inclusion. Staff members told me they felt organisations were using polarised public debates to neglect commitments to making change and people from marginalised backgrounds reported a ‘reversion to normal’ after the pandemic, instead of the real change that was promised.

I have heard people in the sector question whether this war on woke is not being driven by the sector itself, but by the government. As Mimi Findlay, executive director of the Bush Theatre in west London, explains: “Has the government been really effective in shutting down conversations about any sort of progression? There’s this title given – war on woke – and now, so many are stuck in this space trying to figure out how to get around that conversation to do the work that resonates with audiences.

“At the Bush, we’re lucky. Our audiences and funders are incredibly supportive of the work that we do. But theatres everywhere are grappling with this: you don’t want to put people off, you don’t want to exclude people, you don’t want to put organisations in a particular position if they’re working on behalf of other individuals that may have a range of opinions.”

There is widespread belief across the sector that the principle of creative freedom of expression is being eroded. In recent weeks, the narrative has shifted keenly. The government’s recent condemnation of theatre Black Out nights has caused many to question the purpose of such an intervention. And Arts Council England’s (multiple) revisions to its Relationship Framework for grant recipients attracted widespread pushback. The initial update related the potential for “political or activist statements” made by individuals associated with an organisation to impact that organisation’s funding agreement.

‘I came into this industry when really meaty issues were being tackled in main spaces, and not as an apologetic conversation around the margins’ – Paule Constable, lighting designer

Fierce criticism from the sector included artists such as Bob and Roberta Smith painting over works with vanilla-coloured paint, writing: “Removing politics and satire from this painting”, leading organisations and creatives to ask what the endpoint is of ACE’s request that they “plan to mitigate any risks that might arise” from undertaking “activity, even in a personal capacity, that might be deemed controversial”. ACE has since moved to reassure artists and organisations that it supports freedom of expression and has said it would not remove funding purely because of work that is political.

Yet, many still believe that the situation is indicative of wider debates around this issue. Denise Fahmy, who co founded the campaign group Freedom in the Arts after her own experiences around issues of free speech while working at Arts Council England, thinks the purpose of arts organisations “appears to have shifted away from their core mission of making high-quality work into a mission of changing society, for which they are not particularly well suited”. Equality and diversity efforts have contributed to this situation, she thinks: “Identity is being weaponised against us and against each other.”

‘It feels clearer than ever that audiences want work that reflects the questions of these times. ACE’s revisions makes creating that work hard’ – Suba Das, director

One senior leader with significant influence both in the sector and with policy-makers, who did not wish to be identified, adds: “Performing arts [organisations] have stopped putting artists and audiences at the centre of their purpose in their focus on social justice. Theatres have lost their way on this.”

If artists do not feel they can make work deemed controversial, or if theatre workers do not feel as though the organisations employing them are open to ways of working that support and empower them, this will surely have consequences on the industry’s efforts to be more representative and inclusive.

Continues...

Choreographer Rosie Kay, who resigned from her self-titled dance company in 2021 after a row over her stance on gender identity, co-founded Freedom in the Arts with Fahmy last year. When it comes to freedom of expression, she proposes a sector-wide recommitment: “It would be helpful if sector-focused organisations restated their commitment to artistic freedom and their own political (with a small p) impartiality. Their organisational impartiality enables the freedoms of the individual. I also think there should be some level of awareness and discussion on the cancelling of artists and protection of artists. In some cases this has led to tragic outcomes, and overall has cost certain artists greatly and led to widespread fear and a lack of confidence to risk-take in the whole arts sector.”

Suba Das, former artistic director of Liverpool Everyman and Playhouse, worries about what ACE’s revisions and the wider debate mean both for inclusion and diversity, and the sector at large: “To me, that’s a disastrous abandonment of the arm’s-length principle because it totally neglects the conditions of safety and permission required for any artist to execute the potential of their voice fully. The anxiety that is spilled out over social media indicates self-censorship is already underway.”

He adds that it is hard to imagine that a director or writer “who wants to explore material that is critical of the government will feel that [the person commissioning them] actually has any power to protect them”.

“When one sees shows such as I, Daniel Blake and The Beekeeper of Aleppo selling out all over the country, Boys from the Blackstuff transferring from Liverpool down to London and so on, it feels clearer than ever that audiences want work that reflects – as only theatre can – the questions of these times. The revision of the framework, triggering the responses it has, makes creating that very work harder,” says Das. 

Paule Constable, one of the UK’s leading lighting designers and an associate at London’s National Theatre, adds: “I came into this industry because of its politics, ironically, [at a time when there was] investment in culture, inclusion proper, of putting things on stage that were radical and political and not apologising about it. It meant that so many different leaders were developed and thrived. Really meaty issues were being tackled in main spaces, it was not an apologetic conversation around the margins.”

‘If we as a sector believe we have a role in social change, then we must collectively create a voice that speaks to policy and government’ – Pooja Ghai, artistic director of Tamasha theatre

Theatre’s place in wider society should also be considered. What theatre is, and what it represents, is different for different people. It is an art form and an industry that needs to work hard to be many things. As Pooja Ghai, artistic director of Tamasha Theatre, explains: “Mamma Mia!, ABBA Voyage and that kind of West End experience isn’t going to change the world, and nor should it, necessarily. That’s not what it’s there for. Yes, we want and need all of those offerings within the commercial sphere.”

But, she says, the sector must also ask itself: “Why do we do the art that so many of our audiences value?” 

“We talk about doing it because we want to contribute to making the world a better place. If we as a sector believe that we have a role to play in social change, then we have to collectively create a voice that speaks to policy and government. [The industry] holds a very important place in our national psychology and consciousness – and in our social and political standing around where we are as a nation. I don’t think those two connect right now.

“Companies such as ours are holding the mantle of justice and social change with so little money and support – this is where we need to challenge government and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport to put more money in the coffers instead of starving our artistic capabilities.”

What is clear amid all the noise – across the spectrum, irrespective of political persuasion – is that the desire for artistic freedom and the re-establishment of reasoned, measured dialogue does exist, and within it is the possibility for theatre’s desire for a more equitable, diverse and inclusive industry to grow.