Looking back, moving forward: drama, disability and social justice

The aim of this chapter is to briefly outline how disability has been represented in theatre, what access disabled people have had to drama and theatre in the past, and what might be achieved in the pursuit of social justice with young people in relation to awareness of and provision for disability. It will focus in particular on how disability has been addressed in drama education and what assumptions have been made regarding drama and disability in education. In considering such issues one might perceive manifestations of what Freebody and Finneran (2013) recognise as an overlapping and ‘somewhat artificially created dichotomy between drama for social justice and drama about social justice.’ This chapter will examine some examples of how drama has been used to give students in mainstream schools insights into disability, and the philosophy that underpins the drama curriculum of one special school where the focus is on drama as social justice: the argument being that in some cases simply doing drama is, in effect, a manifestation of social justice. Finally, some of the progress made in recent years regarding access and engagement will be addressed through specific reference to the authors’ on-going work into ‘performing social research’ (Shah, 2013) and how theatres are increasingly attempting to give more access to disabled young people and their families by offering ‘relaxed performances.’

Lost in mistranslation : A case study of Japanese TV-drama fansubs

「Fansubs」というのはファンが翻訳した字幕のことである。
 本稿では日本のテレビドラマの「Fansubs」の特徴を調べる為、3つのテレビドラマの日本 語の台詞と、ファンが作った字幕を比べている。原文のテキストが翻訳と字幕制作でどの ように変わったかを情報の増減や誤訳など9つのカテゴリーに分類し、字幕テキストを 分析した。作成したのがプロの翻訳者ではなく、または非常に短期間で作成されたこの 「Fansubs」は、公式のテレビやDVDの字幕よりも誤訳などのエラーが非常に多いことが分 かった。 

Learning in and through drama : The necessity to use multiple theoretical perspectives in order to understand how learning takes place in drama

The complexity of learning implies that learning seldom is about just one thing. It can be said that learning processes are interdisciplinary. Within educational contexts, learning is not limited to constructed school subjects. In drama education, learning is simultaneously about drama as aesthetic expression and content because drama always is about something. The mainly focus can be on form, content or social aspects. The different aspects are always present, but may be more or less foreground or the background depending on the purpose of education. How do development concerning understanding of form, content, and social interaction, interact in a learning process in drama? My research is based on the view that learning at the same time takes place as an individual, internal process and a socially situated, inter-subjective process. Can learning in drama imply learning that can be transferred between different situations, a transformative learning and if so, how? Transformative learning includes cognitive, affective and corporal and social action aspects and means that the individual's frames of reference are transformed, evolved, to become more insightful and flexible which implies a change of personality. It leads to an integrated knowledge that can be applied in different contexts.   In the paper that will be presented at the conference, theories about how we learn in drama will be discussed in relation to my empirical research concerning drama and learning.

Intent and Method: A Study of Female Characters in Aeschylean and Euripidean Drama

Aeschylus and Euripides used tragic female characters to help fulfill the purpose of religious celebration and to achieve the motivation of public reaction. The playwrights, revising myths about tragic woman and redefining the Greek definition of appropriate femininity, supported or questioned the very customs which they changed. Originally composed as part of a religious festival for Dionysus, the god of wine, revelry and fertility, the tragedies of Aeschylus and Euripides were evaluated by Aristotle. He favored Aeschylus over Euripides, but it appears as if his stipulations for tragic characterization do not apply to Aeschylean and Euripidean women. Modem critics question both Aristotle's analysis in the Poetics as well as the tragedies which he evaluated. As part of the assessment of Aeschylus, the character of the Persian Queen, Atossa, appears as a conradiction the images that Greeks maintain of non-Greeks. The Persians is discussed in relation to modem criticisms and as on its function as a warning against radical changes in Athenian domestic life. The Oresteia, a trilogy, also charts the importance of an atypical woman in Aeschylean tragedy, and how this role, Clytaemnestra, represents an extreme example of the natural and necessary evolution of families, households and kingdoms. In contrast to Aeschylus' plea to retain nomoi (traditional custom and law), EUripides' tragedy, the Medea, demonstrates the importance of a family and a country to provide security, especially for women. Medea's abandonment by Jason and subsequent desperation drives her to commit murder in the hope of revenge. Ultimately, Euripides advocates changes in social convention away from the alienation of non-Greek, non-citizens, and females. Euripides is, unfortunately, tagged a misogynist by some in this tragedy and another example-the Hippolytus. Euripides' Phaedra becomes entangled in a scheme of divine vengeance and ultimately commits suicide in an attempt to avoid societal shame. Far from treatises of hate, Euripidean women take advantage of the little power they possess within a constrictive social system. While both Aeschylus and Euripides revise customary images and expectations of women in the context of religiously-motivated drama, one playwright intends to maintain civic order and the other intends to challenge the secular norm.