(Re)discovering North America

The UWC-USA Arts and Culture program features a series of Cultural Weeks, each culminating in a two-hour multidisciplinary performance that highlights one of six geographical regions. The regional designations feel somewhat arbitrary (South Asia combined with the Middle East and Central Asia, separated from East Asia; Mexico linked with the United States, separated from the Caribbean which is combined with South America and Brazil, but not connected to origin cultures in Sub-Saharan Africa; North Africa joining both Africa and the Middle East, Europe separated from its colonial consequences, etc.) 

My first two-year cycle as showcase director for these regional performances concluded with the North American Division (which, curiously, includes Australia and New Zealand, but not England). Working with my own region at the end of a cycle that introduced me over time to teenage impressions of global cultural life offered me a unique opportunity for reflection on the substance and process of enculturation. I have wondered throughout these two years how these productions reflect, inform, and challenge regional stereotypes. I have noticed that students often remark that their behavior in groups reflects the stereotypes of their regions – these kinds of comments are especially common from students who belong to more than one region (or who perform as guests) and have the opportunity to participate in multiple cultural showcases.  I also noticed a level of familiarity of process for myself with the North American show that was much more organic for me than in all of the others – I was better prepared to anticipate sources of possible conflict and stress, and I felt more fluent with methods of managing leadership decisions, conflict resolution, and decisions and values related to show content.   

This raises questions for me, personally, about the impact of cultural conditioning in areas that are so deeply embedded in the unconscious that they are rarely discussed, including: how we respond to concepts of hierarchy and the characteristics we value in leadership; how we behave in groups and how we respond to each other under pressure; and how we value public and private engagement in performance activities. These behavioral identities reflect values frameworks that may be less obvious components of culture, but perhaps they are at the core of cultural conflicts that often masquerade as something more concrete and specific.

One frequent comment I heard in response to this show that I found particularly compelling was that it seemed especially “political” when compared to previous shows. I raised this issue in the arts leadership seminar that followed the show, and in doing so, I happened upon an especially complex conversation – the connotations that we carry unconsciously for a word that is used with such impunity seem to have the power to define these conversations before we are even allowed to start them. It was surprising to me to realize how many people carry negative associations for the word “politics;” this was reflected in criticism for show content that I personally saw as positive and instructive. It made me wonder how our decisions to avoid political engagement function as unconscious political decisions, reinforced by cultural norms. 

For example: a jazz performance opened with a monologue that drew attention to the problematic racial elements of an art form that has a long history of appropriation, erasure, and economic disparity. While dominant (white) narratives might suggest that the jazz without the monologue is “apolitical,” allowing people to “just enjoy the art,” this reflects an avoidance of context. It may be apolitical for those who hold a position in society that allows them to experience the art outside of context. But for anyone impacted by or interested in the ramifications of this history, its exclusion is also political – it allows for a narrative of erasure to be perpetuated, a narrative that is rarely discussed but that is nonetheless embedded in our cultural landscape.

Another question that came up during our debriefing seminar was whether politics is something that specifically defines the US-American character, and whether this impacted the direction of the show. While this is reductive, it may reference a US tendency to engage in embittered oppositional political statements that don’t often result in action, as opposed to organic and authentic engagement in political activities for concrete change that is sometimes evident elsewhere. The question may unveil something about the nature of US politics that was reflected in show content. Themes that students integrated throughout the show often spoke to related quandaries, including: the complexity of identities perceived as “mixed,” challenges with labeling national, regional, and politically marginalized identities, the relationship between the US and Canada and the impact of perceived US dominance, and the impact of colonialism across several historical British colonies. All of these themes (and others) offer opportunities for considerable exploration related to the manifestation of political behavior and orientations in North America. 

I remembered, while working on this show, how it was precisely my immersion in other cultures through travel that helped me begin to recognize and understand the values and conditions of my own culture. I have heard many US-Americans say that they didn’t know that they had a culture until experiencing similar moments of contrast, as well, an odd casualty of belonging to a culture so globally imposing as to be habitually perceived as universal. The attempt to define these moments of contrast in a performance medium also betrays many of our more problematic assumptions: How often, when we talk of US-American culture, do we really mean white culture? Do we picture some midwestern town surrounded by cornfields as the Real America? How often do we ignore indigenous narratives, immigrant narratives, the cultural collisions that define our political structures, the impossible task of belonging as a perceived “other” when the concept of an “other” goes against our sacred melting pot mythology?  Why is it that when we do highlight those narratives, the result is perceived as “political,” but the dominant cultural narratives are perceived as neutral? 

This collision with the “other” through the medium of performance is an extremely powerful site for collateral learning. It forces us to reckon with that perceived neutrality in the distilled and concentrated reality of the stage. It unwraps the labels we unconsciously apply to ourselves and each other, and broadens our sense of identity. It shows us who we are.