Of the âsocialâ
It is surprising to declare that there is no such thing as a âsocialâ context or a society providing the context in which everything is framed: âthere is no social dimension of any sort, not âsocial contextâ, no distinct domain of reality to which the label âsocialâ or âsocietyâ could be attributedâ (Latour 2005, p. 4). Such a thesis contradicts everything that sociologists have been fond of until now, positing the existence of a specific sort of phenomenon called âsocietyâ, âsocial orderâ, âsocial practiceâ or âsocial structureâ, a frame possessing specific qualities able to explain, reinforce, express, maintain, reproduce, or subvert what are believed to be âsocialâ phenomena, phenomena that cannot be grasped or explained by other disciplines. According to such an understanding, the social domain is a given; it does not only permeate other domains but also accounts for several dynamicsâfor example, relational or interactionalâthat take place in these domains. In such a mode of thinking, theatreânotably âsocial theatreââcan be practised in order to express, transform, integrate or subvert such âsocialâ dynamics or contexts.
Now, letâs see what if there is no given âsocialâ domain, indeed? What if there is no such thing as a society? If âsocialâ is not a glue that holds different elements together, but ratherâaccording to this type of reasoningâis what is glued together by other types of connectors. In other words, social aggregates are not a given through which aspects of or dynamics in economics, linguistics, psychology, management and so on can be grasped, described or explained. Instead, social aggregates are rather resulting within the economic, linguistic, psychological or management sectors and should be described or explained by the specific associations provided by these sectors.
To the social theatre practitioner, these preoccupations will sound like hair-splitting debates, and maybe they are. Yet they have far-reaching consequences. One most important consequence is that if we conceive of the âsocialâ as a given entity we tend to see relationships, interactions and other âsocialâ expressions as given dynamics that result within the given âsocialâ entity. Hence, we concentrate our attention on these âsocialâ interactions before we concern ourselves with the types of connections between things that are not themselves âsocialâ and that exist within the mentioned domains, a much more fluid conception. Seeing the âsocialâ as a given entity with given dynamics is what social workers, counsellors, therapists and related professionals have been doing until now. They emphasize the importance of relations and interactions assuming that, if those are brought into harmonyâfor example through theatre practicesâindividuals and groups will function more appropriately.
In contrast to that, a view I would like to adopt here sees no given âsocialâ domain but only traces that are left by very specific movements that happen within particular types of connections between things that are not themselves âsocialâ. The consequence of such a view is that it places the subject matter before the relationship. The âsocialâ emerges within contexts that are created through connections of elements that have no âsocialâ qualities in themselves. And hence, when intervening in such a context, we are concerned with tasks that aim at solving problems connected with the subject matter rather than with relationships. Through particular tasks, we create spaces that can become âsocialâ. And this is precisely what theatre does. This is where theatre can deploy each âactorâ (human and non-human) so as to create spaces that allow for the âsocialâ to emerge. This is, indeed, the power hidden in theatre practices, as we discuss in Section 2 of this chapter.
Before I elaborate on these connections between assuming and solving tasks and the creation of spaces that let the âsocialâ emerge, I would like to invite the reader to have a look at what a âsocialâ group is, or can be, according to the view adopted here. Since the âsocialâ domain is believed to be peopled by âsocialâ groups, and social theatre is in some way related to âsocialâ groups, it seems necessary to take a closer look at these particular phenomena.
Of social groups
As the âsocialâ does not exist of and by itself, groups exist only by the traces they leave. As Latour points out, mapping the controversies in the formation of groups is more interesting and far reaching for the researcher of the âsocialâ than describing established connections since âgroup formations leave many more traces in their wake than already established connections which, by definition, might remain mute and invisibleâ (Latour 2005, p. 31). Hence, visibility is the crucial point here, and, in order for the traces left by group formations to be visible, some items will always be present: âgroups are made to talk; anti-groups are mapped; new resources are fetched so as to make their boundaries more durable; and professions with their highly specialized paraphernalia are mobilizedâ to report about the groups (Latour 2005, p. 31). In other words, groups cannot be defined like other given objects through an ostensive definition but only through a performative one. Groups are made by the various ways and manners in which they are said to exist. This performative element supports group members and groups to âcreateâ and present themselves, to exist and to be visible. According to Latour âif you stop making and remaking groups you stop ha...