White Supremacy in Theatre Criticism
Systemic Patterns of White Supremacy Culture In Contemporary Theatre Criticism:
Based on Tema Okun and Kenneth Jones work
Tactic and Definition |
Presentation in Theatre Criticism |
| power hoarding • little, if any, value around sharing power • power seen as limited, only so much to go around • those with power feel threatened when anyone suggests changes in how things should be done in the organization, feel suggestions for change are a reflection on their leadership • those with power don’t see themselves as hoarding power or as feeling threatened • those with power assume they have the best interests of the organization at heart and assume those wanting change are ill-informed (stupid), emotional, inexperienced | Power to review a show that affects audience attendance and “success” of a production is limited to one reviewer from one major paper per show. Critic positions are limited and thus their power is seen as limited and not able to be shared or broadened. A reviewer’s power to determine the fate of a show is feared by the theatre community. Reviewer’s power is described as “having the best interest of audiences” at heart and assumed that those wanting change are ignorant, selfish, vengeful or pitiful. Any criticism of the current power structure is attacked for being ill-informed, self-serving, or anti-free of speech even when the power of a bad reviews ends up silencing art and artists by cutting of it’s chance to find a receptive audience. |
| individualism* • little experience or comfort working as part of a team • people in organization believe they are responsible for solving problems alone • accountability, if any, goes up and down, not sideways to peers or to those the organization is set up to serve • desire for individual recognition and credit • leads to isolation • competition more highly valued than cooperation and where cooperation is valued, little time or resources devoted to developing skills in how to cooperate • creates a lack of accountability, as the organization values those who can get things done on their own without needing supervision or guidance | Critics do not consult others when reviewing a show but only rely on their personal experience as a solo and unique opinionator. There is little to no accountability for the consequences of a reviewer’s reviews, there are no second or third reviews for a show, there is no re-reviewing. Reviewers are isolated from the art-making community and the practice, purpose and philosophy of working artists. Competition for head theatre critic jobs leads to little cooperation or sharing or passing of “the microphone” even if the play is one that requires different lived experience to responsibly critique. |
| objectivity* • the belief that there is such a thing as being objective or ‘neutral’ • requiring people to think in a linear (logical) fashion and ignoring or invalidating those who think in other ways • impatience with any thinking that does not appear ‘logical’ |
Reviewers present their reviews as coming from the false place of cultural, aesthetic, artistic, and/or literary objectivity, as though their one opinion can decide for all audiences what is “good” or “bad”, “worthy” or “meaningful”, “successful” or “necessary.” In reality their opinions come from personally specific backgrounds, genders, races, lifestyles, experiences, educations and other lived experiences. But theatre criticism does not currently require or encourage personally specific context when reviewing. They do not relate to their audiences who they are, what they like, why they like it, and what their history of taste/bias/approval is. |
| either/or thinking* • things are either/or — good/bad, right/wrong, with us/against us • closely linked to perfectionism in making it difficult to learn from mistakes or accommodate conflict • no sense that things can be both/and | A single critic’s subjective version of perfect, clear or good can determine the value of an entire production rather than allowing both/and thinking. . Rating systems and stars can further limit the ability to convey nuance, specificity, subjectivity, and difference of opinion on “good” and “worthy.” |
| perfectionism* • little appreciation expressed among people for the work that others are doing; appreciation that is expressed usually directed to those who get most of the credit anyway • more common is to point out either how the person or work is inadequate • or even more common, to talk to others about the inadequacies of a person or their work without ever talking directly to them |
Commonly known that bad reviews or slams get more clicks than positive reviews which leads to reviews more often pointing out the subjective “bad” than the holistic good. Standards of perfect are not shared or universal, but wielded with great force nonetheless. Reviewers do not discuss qualms or distaste directly with affected artists which further distances them from accountability or understanding. |
| sense of urgency • continued sense of urgency that makes it difficult to take time to be inclusive, encourage democratic and/or thoughtful decision-making, to think long-term, to consider consequences |
Reviewers must write responses quickly and without consultation. Reviewers must write a review whether they want to or not, whether they liked it or not. That pressure amplifies the presence and frequency of highly damaging reviews with little time to be thorough, collaborative or inquisitive. |
| defensiveness • the organizational structure is set up and much energy spent trying to prevent abuse and protect power as it exists rather than to facilitate the best out of each person or to clarify who has power and how they are expected to use it • because of either/or thinking (see below), criticism of those with power is viewed as threatening and inappropriate (or rude) • people respond to new or challenging ideas with defensiveness, making it very difficult to raise these ideas • a lot of energy in the organization is spent trying to make sure that people’s feelings aren’t getting hurt or working around defensive people • white people spend energy defending against charges of racism instead of examining how racism might actually be happening • the defensiveness of people in power creates an oppressive culture | There is no real way to critique critics. There is often defensiveness to any form of critique, a defensiveness artists are not allowed without being seen as bitter. Criticism of those with publishing power is viewed as threatening and inappropriate (or rude). White reviewers spend energy defending against charges of racism instead of examining how racism might actually be happening. |
| paternalism • decision-making is clear to those with power and unclear to those without it • those with power think they are capable of making decisions for and in the interests of those without power • those with power often don’t think it is important or necessary to understand the viewpoint or experience of those for whom they are making decisions • those without power understand they do not have it and understand who does • those without power do not really know how decisions get made and who makes what decisions, and yet they are completely familiar with the impact of those decisions on them | All theatre artists know how much power critics have and who wields that power. The decision making hierarchy (i.e. deciding the worth and success of a production and it’s subsequent audience building power) is well known, but most theatre artists do not know how those powerful decisions are made each time. Critics present their powerful summations as though they are capable of making cultural decisions of worth for those without their power. Reviewers with power do not acknowledge or entertain the idea that it is important or necessary to understand the viewpoint or experience of those for whom they are making decisions. Reviewers do not acknowledge the consequences of their powerful negative reviews. |