Fascinating new questions raised about our new obsession with diversity in the theatrical realm. Jonathan Mandell asks some tough questions in his essay on Howlround. Here's an excerpt:
How many people pushing for diversity are looking at the big picture, and how many are actually just advocating for a single demographic group, one in which they are a member? Does this make a difference?
Has “diversity” become a word like “patriotism” used to be—something you need to support, and will be attacked if you question, but something that means so many different things to so many different people that it’s in danger of losing its meaning?
What does it mean?
Is the diversity movement in the theater focused on having more characters depicted on stage from underrepresented demographic groups (race, gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, etc.), and having these depictions be free from stereotype and inaccuracy? Or is diversity in the theater world about giving jobs to more people from historically underemployed groups? Aren’t some people assuming that these are one and the same issue—that a woman can write best about women? Does this assumption denigrate the belief that artistic talent transcends one’s demographic identity?
To read the full piece, click here.
How many people pushing for diversity are looking at the big picture, and how many are actually just advocating for a single demographic group, one in which they are a member? Does this make a difference?
Has “diversity” become a word like “patriotism” used to be—something you need to support, and will be attacked if you question, but something that means so many different things to so many different people that it’s in danger of losing its meaning?
What does it mean?
Is the diversity movement in the theater focused on having more characters depicted on stage from underrepresented demographic groups (race, gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, etc.), and having these depictions be free from stereotype and inaccuracy? Or is diversity in the theater world about giving jobs to more people from historically underemployed groups? Aren’t some people assuming that these are one and the same issue—that a woman can write best about women? Does this assumption denigrate the belief that artistic talent transcends one’s demographic identity?
- See more at: http://www.howlround.com/is-diversity-a-codeword-for-exclusion?utm_source=HowlRound.com%27s+Email+Communications&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=921097b0ea-DAILY_RSS_EMAIL&utm_term=0_9ac5709e38-921097b0ea-45173977#sthash.Ia9n0mEp.dpufHow many people pushing for diversity are looking at the big picture, and how many are actually just advocating for a single demographic group, one in which they are a member? Does this make a difference?
Has “diversity” become a word like “patriotism” used to be—something you need to support, and will be attacked if you question, but something that means so many different things to so many different people that it’s in danger of losing its meaning?
What does it mean?
Is the diversity movement in the theater focused on having more characters depicted on stage from underrepresented demographic groups (race, gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, etc.), and having these depictions be free from stereotype and inaccuracy? Or is diversity in the theater world about giving jobs to more people from historically underemployed groups? Aren’t some people assuming that these are one and the same issue—that a woman can write best about women? Does this assumption denigrate the belief that artistic talent transcends one’s demographic identity?
- See more at: http://www.howlround.com/is-diversity-a-codeword-for-exclusion?utm_source=HowlRound.com%27s+Email+Communications&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=921097b0ea-DAILY_RSS_EMAIL&utm_term=0_9ac5709e38-921097b0ea-45173977#sthash.Ia9n0mEp.dpuf
