Theatre and witnessing: an investigation into verbatim ‘theatre as reconciliation’ in post-apartheid South Africa

Abstract

It is often stated that art reflects reality. Therefore, it should not be a surprise that in times of extreme conflict and oppression, theatre practitioners explore themes such as violence, legacy and emancipation during and after such situations. As with any verbatim theatre production, the play is based on real stories and events. Within the South African context, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission has enabled a large number of enlightening narratives to enter local, national and international discourses. This has also provided many opportunities for the further exploration of both the individual stories, and themes arising, through the medium of verbatim theatre. This paper reflects on a number of different examples of verbatim theatre productions in a post-apartheid South Africa, including productions such as Ubu and the Truth Commission (1997), He Left Quietly (2002) and Truth in Translation (2006). While these theatre productions utilize real stories to explore topical and contentious themes, each production explores the different narratives by employing a variety of dramaturgical techniques.

Keywords:

• verbatim theatre
• South Africa
• Truth and Reconciliation Commission
• testimony
• conflict

Introduction

Theatre is the ambitious sister of Testimony. It strives to heal through truth. (Tutu 2008, p. 7)

Theatre and other forms of artistic practice provide a creative platform to ‘allow’ both individuals and groups the opportunity, and space, to narrate a story. While many theatrical performances are often fictional, verbatim theatre seeks to reflect ‘real’ testimonies in a manner that somewhat dramatizes ‘oral histories’, being based on real life events and the people involved. Such theatre provides an opportunity for people who feel that they have previously been underrepresented or marginalized to have their voices heard. This includes having the participants themselves portray their own, authentic, stories on stage, following some basic acting ‘training’, such as in the ‘Theatre of Witness’ productions, or where professional actors are provided with the context, background information and testimonies from the participants', to enable them to authentically represent the participants' lives on stage. This is particularly important within a conflict setting, as verbatim theatre has, at the very least, the potential to act as a catalyst or an effective instrument of reconciliation, where the participants' ‘voices’ are added to the existing archive and alongside other source material, to help develop a ‘personal’ and ‘social’ truth.

This paper is an exploration of verbatim theatre making the argument that it is an effective theatrical mechanism that can build upon other methods of social narrative that develop reconciliation in a ‘post-conflict’ society. Accordingly, examples of verbatim theatre from South Africa in relation to post-apartheid verbatim theatre productions that were inspired by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (1995–2002) will be examined. Firstly, the role of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) in South Africa will be considered, specifically its exploration of ‘truth’. The focus will then turn to exploring how dramatic practices such as verbatim theatre has been developed as a means of reconciliation, drawing upon specific projects/plays from South Africa as practical examples. This comparison will mainly highlight and examine the different dramaturgical techniques employed in each production. The ‘process driven’ TRC of South Africa will be juxtaposed with these two examples of verbatim theatre.

The Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) in South Africa

While the direct focus of this study is on the mechanisms of the TRC and verbatim theatre in post-apartheid South Africa, it is important to understand the context of the apartheid system which was present in South Africa for nearly half a century in the second half of the twentieth century, resulting in great injustice and decades of protest and violence arising from racial segregation and discrimination. The goal of apartheid, according to Chris Onwuzurike in his seminal piece titled Black People and the Apartheid (1987), was the ‘enhancement of the white economic well-being and political stabilization through perpetual scapegoating of blacks’ (p. 224). Apartheid purposefully created racial segregation, with many structural injustices being perpetrated on the oppressed non-white South Africans. These injustices led to many acts of internal protest, resistance and violence against the apartheid system as ‘revolutionary violence is associated with a political programme for the fundamental transformation of a social order’ according to African political academic Nnoli (1987, p. 27). Revolutionary violence can also be regarded as political violence. Anti-apartheid campaigner Allan Boesak observed that South Africa was a violent society with violent laws defended by violence (1983). Many of those subjected to discrimination and injustice employed subjective physical violence to stand up against the more objective structural violence of the apartheid state.

The TRC was created to develop a ‘truth’ in the aftermath of apartheid, something which was embedded in the very name of the ‘Truth and Reconciliation Commission’. Additionally, Archbishop Desmond Tutu, who was a key figure in the anti-apartheid and human rights movement in a post-apartheid South Africa, asserted that ‘true forgiveness deals with the past, all of the past, to make a future possible’ (2000, p. 226). The TRC was conceived in 1995 by the new South African government after the end of apartheid. The TRC was developed to address what had happened in the past, as ignoring or forgetting past events, including atrocities, was not an option because ‘forgetting the brutality of the past might well lead to massive acts of revenge, or even civil war’ (Verdoolaege 2008, p. 1). The South African government bravely decided to address the problems of the past head on in an attempt to reduce the chances of unofficial acts of retribution.

The TRC was a vehicle for hearing from anyone who was involved in violent acts, whether that be the anti-apartheid organizations such as the African National Congress (ANC) or state-run organizations such as the South African Police (SAP). Before focussing in on specific details, it is important to briefly examine the concept of ‘truth’ within the South African context. President Nelson Mandela stated that the TRC was a ‘negotiation process’ that created a ‘pact to uncover the truth’ (1998). However, due to the ambiguous and somewhat vague nature of the concept of ‘truth’, the founders of the TRC decided to define four different categories of ‘truth’ in order to establish some clarity. These were the:

1. Forensic Truth

2. Personal (or Narrative) Truth

3. Social Truth

4. Reconciliatory Process

While ‘forensic’ truth was considered important to the process due to its pursuit of ‘cold facts’, the TRC felt that being overly focused on ‘forensic’ truth alone would not allow for the healing process to begin, because pure ‘forensic’ truths might ignore human emotions and subsequently, emotional wounds, as well as the very personal sense of loss that individuals/society had endured during apartheid. To address this, it was felt that allowing for a focus on ‘personal’ or ‘narrative’ truth within the TRC hearings would provide an opportunity for the victims to grieve and heal by recounting personal experiences. In the findings report of the TRC, the Commission outline their rationale for allowing space for the telling of ‘personal’ truth by noting that ‘by telling their stories, both victims and perpetrators gave meaning to the multi-layered experiences of the South African story’ (TRC 1998, p. 112). Not only did the process of allowing for ‘personal’ stories to be told within the overall TRC process prove to be important, but the method in which these stories were disseminated to the local, national and international public was also effective. For example, transcriptions of the hearings, along with press clippings and video material were all given to the National Archives by the Commission (TRC 1998, p. 113). The public access of these ‘personal’ truths meant that the ‘social’ truth could begin to flourish as these narratives became part of the public discourse. Antjie Krog, in her important book entitled Country of My Skull, examined the TRC from her perspective as a radio reporter during the Commission process, writing that ‘the voices of ordinary people have entered the public discourse and shaped the passage of history’ (1999, p. x). Relating this to artistic mechanisms for social development, this ultimately means that through different artistic platforms such as visual art, music and theatre, artists could explore these narratives in a creative manner. This transition from ‘personal’ to ‘social’ truth then enables the ‘reconciliatory process’ to begin. John Paul Lederach, one of the leading academics in the field of ‘peace’, argues that creative solutions are fundamental in conflict transformation and long-term structural change, that ‘the key to creative solutions … lies in designing a responsive and adaptive platform for constructive change’ (2003, p. 32). Thus, the argument here is that verbatim theatre in South Africa has been utilized as a ‘adaptive platform’ that allows for not only artistic representation and expression, but also a means in which the legacy of these stories is continued in an accessible manner.

While it is clear that the TRC developed a valuable ‘oral history’ archive in South Africa that served to transform the public discourse surrounding apartheid, the TRC was not immune from criticism. For example, as in any conflict situation, the relationship between the victim and the perpetrator is complex given the delicate nature of past events. There were two different sets of hearings within the TRC – the perpetrator focused ‘Amnesty Hearings’ and the victim focused hearings on ‘Human Rights Violations’. It was agreed to separate the two sets of hearings as they were aiming to achieve different outcomes. The academic, Jeremy Watkins, however, felt that ‘emphasis on perpetrator acknowledgement is overstated’ and that the victim hearings were, therefore, undermined (2015, p. 3). This view is arguably more concerned with processes of justice rather than reconciliation, especially as ‘the Commission ran parallel to the justice system’ (Vora and Vora 2004, p. 305). This does not, however, mean that the victim did not have a role in the ‘Amnesty Hearings’ as amnesty could only be granted to the perpetrator if the victim and/or their family accepted their appeal for amnesty. Giving the victim the power to decide whether or not amnesty should be granted is an important difference between the TRC and more conventional judicial hearings as, ‘the choice between trials and truth commissions as mechanisms of transitional justice involves a shift in the focus of truth production from perpetrator to victim’ (Humphrey 2003, p. 172). An important challenge of this process was that the victim was required to accept the perpetrator’s request for amnesty in order to potentially achieve closure around the events that had affected them or their family members and caused so much suffering and trauma. Pankhurst explores this trade-off by writing that ‘where amnesty is offered in return for truth-telling, the sense of being deprived of justice has the potential to provoke further violence’ (2008, p. 10). Thus, there was uncertainty surrounding the granting of amnesty, and in part this could explain the reason why by the end of 2000, only 1312 requests for amnesty were granted out of a possible 7112, resulting in the vast majority of perpetrators not gaining amnesty for their actions (Department of Justice and Constitutional Development of the Republic of South Africa, 2017).

The term ‘reconciliation’ is as contentious as the concept of ‘truth’ and is often associated with conflict resolution. Peace academic, Komesaroff, however, writes that ‘reconciliation encompasses a broader field than conflict resolution alone, extending to the establishment of peace, justice, fairness, healing and forgiveness’ (2008, p. 1). While these terms all fall under the umbrella term of conflict resolution, it is important to further explore the complexity of ‘reconciliation’. There has been much discussion around storytelling and how it can act as an instrument for reconciliation, as unless ‘trauma is exorcized through confronting and reliving the memory, the wound will continue to fester’ (Fernandes 2017, p. 22). This is particularly pertinent regarding the ‘Human Rights Violations’ hearings that directly affected the victim on an individual level, but also had the potential to achieve reconciliation at a social level since ‘the power of victims’ words is not legal … but empathetic’ (Humphrey 2003, p. 175). Empathy is a fundamental aspect of achieving reconciliation as it may serve as an important steppingstone towards forgiveness, and it was considered to be a significant positive outcome from the TRC process. The African studies academic, Verdoolaege, described how ‘perpetrators and victims of apartheid started to listen to each other, and to a certain extent, they also tried to understand each other’ (2008, p. 2). While some victims at the TRC hearings demanded justice, others simply wanted to uncover the truth of what had happened to their friends and family members and hear, for themselves, an apology from the mouth of the perpetrator. In drawing a direct parallel to the TRC and verbatim theatre practices, the development of empathy is also often considered to be one of the main outcomes of theatrical representation based on the themes of conflict. For example, audience reception academic, Matthew Reason, argues that ‘it is possible to feel the thoughts, actions, pleasures and pains of other people through an intersubjective empathy with their body’ (2006, p. 217). Being in touch with another person’s emotions and narrative is fundamental in both the TRC process and within any verbatim theatre piece in order to develop a deeper connection with the relevant themes.

While the TRC is considered to be one of the most successful examples of a ‘peace’ and ‘reconciliation’ process across the globe, the extremely nuanced and sensitive nature of conflict has meant that it has been almost impossible to bring an end to structural and ongoing legacy issues within post-apartheid South Africa even after over 20 years since the TRC process commenced. For example, in a report written by the South Africa Labour and Development Research Unit in 2018, the authors wrote that ‘South African society might have begun to move toward greater cohesion … but thereafter the momentum seems to have given way to the assertion of social divisions as … inequality within the country grew’ (Hino et al. 2018, p. 2). This point is developed by peace academic Clive Harber, who argues that there is still pervasive antagonism and mistrust among formal political adversaries and South Africa ‘still has many features among various race groups’ such as violence, racism and antagonism (2018, p. 20). Post-apartheid South Africa should not be judged by the success, of the TRC alone, but rather the TRC should be considered as just one of the several important mechanisms that should help with reconciliation. The TRC was a highly publicized process which did bring closure to some of the most infamous events during apartheid, including the killings of the ‘Cradock Four’ (1985) and the murder of Amy Biehl (1993). The publicity which it engendered, and especially the performance element of the public apologies and ‘personal’ truths, had a profound effect on public discourse and the overall reconciliatory process. Verbatim theatre, like other artistic expressions, utilized these narratives to develop a small, yet nuanced, repertoire of work that reflects post-apartheid South Africa.

Verbatim theatre as reconciliation in South Africa

Before analysing verbatim theatre as a means of reconciliation in South Africa specifically, it is important to examine verbatim theatre in general, along with the dramaturgical decisions that separate verbatim theatre from traditional mainstream theatre. Central to verbatim theatre is that the production incorporates the ‘words of real people, as spoken in private interview or public record into drama’ (Billington 2012). This theatrical form is said to have been pioneered by American playwright Anne Deavere Smith in the early 1990s (Long, 2015, p. 305) and the global repertoire of verbatim theatre plays has grown ever since with productions spanning across the United States (The Laramie Project (2000)), the United Kingdom (The Colour of Justice (1999), Black Watch (2008)) and Argentina (Minefield, 2016) to mention a few of the popular productions. Verbatim theatre in South Africa, as with other societies that have faced hardship from years of conflict, offers a creative and ‘raw’ response to events that are still causing division as the country comes to terms with its difficult past. Verbatim theatre practitioner, Robin Belfield, suggests that verbatim theatre ‘brilliantly offers the opportunity for investigation and interrogation of the subjects that have a sense of social importance’ (2018, p. 12–13). In verbatim theatre productions where the TRC hearings provided source material for the performance, the actual transcripts from the hearings would not be used, but rather the general themes and resultant points of discussion which emerged would take precedence. This is an important point as it indicates that, on the face of it, theatre productions around apartheid do not have the same level of authenticity as the stories told in the actual TRC which were relayed to the public through the media. However, while the theatre productions discussed in this paper did not use actual footage or audio recordings from the TRC in their productions, artists such as composer/musician Philip Miller did utilize TRC primary narratives in his cantata REwind (2011) for four soloists, mass choir, string octet and sonic material from the TRC audio archives. In her study of REwind, Carina Venter suggests that this experimental recording is an album of ‘hope and overcoming intended for another time and another generation of South Africans (2021, p. 326).

The impact that ‘theatre as reconciliation’ or ‘theatre for social change’ has on audience members and society is somewhat contentious due to the phenomenological and ephemerality of theatre. According to Sarah Thornton from the Collective Encounters’ Research Lab in Liverpool, ‘theatre for social change … seeks to reveal more clearly the way the world looks: to strange the familiar and expose the systems and tacit understandings that remain largely invisible in our everyday lives’ (2012, p. 5). This shares some commonalities with the predicted outcomes of the TRC in South Africa, in relation to highlighting important ‘narrative’ and ‘social’ truths which underpinned the TRC process. In the case of South Africa, while many people, both local and international, were well aware of the discrimination, segregation and other excesses of the apartheid era, specific stories went largely unheard outside of the immediate circle of victims’ families and friends. The TRC process and theatre productions then provided a public platform from which these stories could be heard.

The theatre production He Left Quietly (2002) by the South African playwright Yael Farber tells the story of Duma Kumalo, one of the members of the ‘Sharpeville Six’, and his experiences on death row. Theatre academic Amanda Stuart Fisher writes that the play ‘directs our attention away from the politics of the situation and instead explores the existential trauma of Kumalo himself’ (2008, p. 15). This victim-centred theatrical production was comparable to the testimonies in the TRC, resonating particularly with the ‘Human Rights Violation’ hearings as it portrays the story of an individual victim and the injustice of the apartheid era. Farber, in devising this play, worked alongside Kumalo himself to ensure as far as possible the authenticity of his story. Kumalo also took part in the TRC hearings, providing an account of a remarkable experience recalling that he ‘met one of the warders who had been my guard on death row’ and the guard said to him ‘our wives had no idea of the kind of work we did. We were too ashamed to tell them’. This private act of repentance directed at Kumalo, led Kumalo to tell a lie during his TRC hearing, as when asked if this was the warder who mistreated him, Kumalo said ‘no’ (Kumalo 2010). While this highlights an important issue with the TRC, as Kumalo was allowed to meet with his ‘oppressor’ before giving a statement, it also indicates that the power within the TRC lies with the victim, and they can consciously (or unconsciously) shape their story accordingly. The social scientist Wielenga states that human memory itself can be flawed as ‘our stories are constantly in flux and being rethought and renegotiated’ (2013, p. 3). However, this is where theatre can assist with the TRC, and in particular the crucial themes raised throughout the TRC proceedings, as the audience witness a person’s personal memory and frame of events which has been reconstructed by a playwright and/or director. While this reconstruction could be considered as a negative aspect of ‘theatre as reconciliation’ in relation to investigating the ‘forensic’ truth, it allows theatre to portray the key elements of the apartheid regime without being restricted to the ‘forensic’ truth.

A play based on apartheid that does not draw on an individual’s direct experience, but rather raises themes relevant to the process of the TRC and apartheid, is Ubu and the Truth Commission (1997) by the playwright Jane Taylor, which ‘does not explore a uniquely South African Story’ (Taylor 1998, p. vii). Different ways of approaching the same event are seen through the creative techniques employed in Ubu and the Truth Commission (1997), for example, unlike He Left Quietly (2002), this production uses non-naturalistic elements such as puppetry and projection of images on to a backdrop. This use of puppetry is also employed as a grotesque representation of key players in the events that take place. For example, the three-headed dog puppet in the play represents a death squad of individuals that acts out various crimes on behalf of Ubu, an apartheid general. One particularly significant line of dialogue is when the dog puppet says ‘You’re the boss. We’re your creature’ (Taylor 1998, p. 7) which raises the issue that much of the violence that took part during the time of apartheid, especially the state violence, was orchestrated by the state and those in power. A dramaturgical different approach allows the audience to both look at, and reflect on, events in a more creative and challenging way.

The use of comedy throughout Ubu and the Truth Commission (1997) is an important dramaturgical decision, with humour often being seen to play an important role in times of conflict or post-conflict. Peace academic Craig Zelizer highlights humour as a coping mechanism, writing that ‘there countless examples of individuals and groups using jokes and humour in conflict settings as a means for survival’ or even ‘as a tool for building bridges’ (2010, p. 1). Humour is an important element that verbatim ‘theatre as reconciliation’ can utilize when exploring devastating topics that emerged from the TRC hearings, not to make light of the seriousness of the events, but to humanize them. For example, in Ubu and the Truth Commission (1997), there are several comedic episodes relating to events that many people would view as dark and may even be considered as taboo. In the case of Ubu and the Truth Commission (1997) specifically, it is clear that ‘comedy is … powerful by looking at the absurd and showing the juxtaposition [of conflict and humanity]. Using humour as a tool in peacebuilding can find those absurdities and break through barriers between ethnic or religious groups’ (Hendi et al. 2012). This absurd humour is not present in the hearings of the TRC or even in He Left Quietly (2002), both of which focus on realism and ‘truth’ as they reveal the worst of humanity by examining events in a sober manner.

Theatre reviewer, Lesley Stones, describes Ubu and the Truth Commission (1997) as including a blend of fact and fiction (2016). While this may suggest that the play employs some elements of verbatim theatre rather than being strictly verbatim, the observation is relevant as Taylor’s play relates to the ‘Amnesty Hearings’ – the main character, Ubu, is defending himself during the testimonies at the end of the performance. Ubu states ‘THIS IS MY COUNTRY. And I won’t give it away without a damn good fight’ (Taylor 1998, p. 69). This also reveals how emotion can affect individual ‘truth’ as Ubu was absorbed in the discourse within the play on national sovereignty.

Whilst these plays are only two examples of ‘theatre as reconciliation’ in post-apartheid South Africa, they both address the idea of ‘truth’, with the perpetrator focused play of Ubu and the Truth Commission (1997) debating the idea of truth that was developed by the TRC. In He Left Quietly (2002), the audience are witnessing a representation of the ‘truth’ from the point of view of Kumalo’s autobiography of his time in prison.

Due to the highly sensitive and personal nature of the TRC, it is sometimes labelled as being the ‘Kleenex Commission’ as ‘a lot of emotions tended to be displayed at the hearings: testifiers started to cry spontaneously when reliving their traumatic experiences’ (Verdoolaege 2008, p. 83). These emotions are often associated with theatre where audience members can experience social emotions and, in turn, develop a degree of empathy. It must be noted that describing the TRC in South Africa as the ‘Kleenex Commission’ should not be considered as negative. This is because emotions and empathy can assist in the process of healing, of humanizing ‘the Other’. Ultimately the TRC and He Left Quietly (2002) both provide a platform for developing a degree of empathy, which is an important part of the journey towards reconciliation. In the case of Ubu and the Truth Commission (1997), Taylor uses a unique and creative approach to the development of reconciliation in light of Lederach’s (2003) comments that ‘constructive change’ stems from creative solutions.

The role of theatre for reconciliation is to act as an accessible medium in which audience members/the public can engage with the stories being told. Essentially, it can be seen as a translator after the narratives are deconstructed for the stage. In terms of translation, one contentious issue relating to the TRC was the use of independent translators in the event of language barriers. While this allowed the words of the participant to be understood, and is crucial in terms of understanding the context, it, however, eliminated a large sense of emotion in the participant’s story and may have made the testimony appear somewhat disjointed. This ‘translator to spectator dynamic’ was explored in a verbatim theatre production entitled Truth in Translation (2006) by the playwright Paavo Tom Tammi which ‘focuses on the interpreters who … listened to the terrible testimony of those who suffered’ (Gardner 2007). The process of creating the script for the performance was ‘developed in consultation with the translators who served on the committee, we see proceedings through their eyes’ (Husband 2007). Similar to the process carried out by Yael Farber in He Left Quietly (2002), this level of co-creation between the playwright and the translators allows for an added layer of authenticity. In terms of audience expectations, however, He Left Quietly (2002) and Truth in Translation (2006) deploy different dramaturgical decisions. For example, while He Left Quietly (2002) utilizes the story of Duma Kumalo in a passive manner, Truth in Translation (2006) disrupts traditional theatre boundaries by directly addressing the audience. Theatre critic, Nicola Husband, observes that ‘a warning is given about the importance of staying neutral, directed at the translators, but unmistakeably meant for us’ (2007). This highlights the challenges that the translators faced of ‘staying neutral’ during the TRC hearings, which is then transferred to the audience members during this performance. This level of empathy not only relates to the ‘personal’ truth that the TRC sets out to discover, but also the ‘social’ truth, as Truth in Testimony (2006) offers an example of how the narratives from the TRC can be enhanced and made accessible to the public in a creative manner, which is, again, something fundamental in the process of conflict transformation.

While focusing on these productions is important in a historical manner, contextualizing the legacy that these productions have left in a contemporary South Africa is crucial. In evaluating the impact of verbatim theatre inspired by the TRC in South Africa, it is important that there is an understanding of the ontological nature of theatre in general. It could be argued that in relation to social change in South Africa, the TRC or subsequent theatre productions and their outcomes have left a lot to be desired, as there is still much injustice plaguing the country. However, from a more positive perspective, it is apparent that the process was worthwhile for those directly involved and those who are able to get their story performed. Often within impact assessments for ‘theatre for social change’ performances, the concept of affect is somewhat overlooked as people look for concrete outcomes which can be clearly evaluated to deem whether or not a project was worthwhile. Applied theatre academic, James Thompson, states that ‘affect refers to emotional, often automatic, embodied responses that occur in relation to something else’ (2009, p. 119). He continues by writing that ‘these ‘bits of practice’ [affect] are the aspects that practitioners and participants might relish … but rarely appear in … evaluation reports that surround the field’ (2009, p. 116). In relating this understanding of the ontological nature of theatre to the potential impact of the verbatim theatre performances explored in this paper, observers need to examine the ‘personal’ and ‘social’ impact in a holistic manner, including any possible visceral effects on audience members. This is where live storytelling performances in particular can be seen as an effective mechanism to assist in reconciliation and conflict transformation. Although theatre and the arts in general themselves are not going to rescue people from conflict and achieve peace, they have the efficacy, if carried out correctly, to generate meaningful discussion and develop empathy between groups and individuals, including those who are on opposite sides of a conflict.

Another important legacy point that these productions have created, relates to their ability to inspire other creative and conscientious individuals to carry out similar relevant productions. This dialogical and creative culture is not only important according to Lederach (2003) and the pursuit of conflict transformation. Relevant productions include the production titled I See You (2016) written by Mongiwekhaya, which is ‘based on a real encounter’ and ‘addresses questions of a new generation of South Africans encountering their country’s traumatized past’ (British Council, 2016). Another production includes Kunene and the King (2019) by John Kani which is about a reflection on ‘a quarter century of change’ (RSC, 2019). While this production is not necessarily based on a ‘real story’, it is still relevant as it addresses important themes that came out of the apartheid era in South Africa. Ultimately, this creative culture also helps to explore other areas of importance through the medium of verbatim theatre directly. This includes performances such as In Our Skin (2020) which focuses on the real stories of members of LGBTQ+ from South Africa and England. This creative culture and exploration will assist in developing a further level of conflict transformation, and also social justice.

Conclusion

In conclusion, in evaluating the ‘personal’ and ‘social’ impact of verbatim theatre based on the TRC in South Africa, it is clear that the TRC generated important narrative ‘truths’ from individuals who had a significant story to tell of suffering and hurt, which was then effectively dramatized on stage. Verbatim theatre not only allowed for these narratives to be more accessible, but also to be explored in a creative manner. Different dramaturgical decisions employed by the artistic directors allowed for unique representations that not only dramatized real stories, but also accompanying themes. For example, while Ubu and the Truth Commission (1997) utilized puppetry and snippets of the TRC to investigate themes of indoctrination and forgiveness, He Left Quietly (2002) made use of verbatim theatre techniques in a traditional sense to investigate themes of victimhood and death. In terms of exploring ‘truth’ as seen in the fundamentals of the TRC, verbatim theatre can also be used to challenge the hegemonic discourses that appeared both during and after apartheid in South Africa. Post-apartheid verbatim theatre based on the TRC was able to both provoke and stimulate interesting and important discussions about legacy without being ‘straight jacketed’ by legal and quasi-legal structures and proceedings. Only when we truly understand the positive outcomes generated by the ‘affect’ will society appreciate the benefit of exploring sensitive topics through the medium of theatre. Such theatre provides an important tool for reconciliation in post-conflict societies, including post-apartheid South Africa, where there are still important structural issues that require to be addressed over thirty years since the ending of apartheid, such as violence, racism and pervasive antagonism.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Correction Statement

This article has been republished with minor changes. These changes do not impact the academic content of the article.