Framing Action Through Participatory Theater: What Can We (Mis)understand for Global Crises?

ABSTRACT

The present article weaves an interdisciplinary perspective into the discussion of global crises. After a brief focus on theoretical underpinnings, it argues that owing to their inherently improvisational and performative constitutions, crises can enable learning and stimulate social change. Concretely, by creating participatory theater workshops, together with individuals in migration, the initially destabilizing performative space is transformed in a common ground for collective action, thereby opening opportunities for learning and reinvention of meanings. It is through the analysis of these processes that the article offers a critical and creative commentary on the constructive role of communication for crises. Ultimately, it demonstrates that verbal misunderstandings serve as catalysts for unconventional and creative ways of expression. In turn, they promote alternative reflections and negotiations, whereby also serving as suitable response tools to employ during crises and following disruptions.

KEYWORDS:

• Global crises
• participatory theater
• misunderstanding
• communication
• imagination
• creativity

Introduction

The twenty-first century is synonymous of remarkable progress in international trade, cultural exchange, rapid transportation and instant communication, which contribute to a flourishing global society (Sidiropoulou, 2022). These constant processes have seemingly transformed our international society into a robust and abundant multitude that overcomes any obstacle, hurdle, or border. However, Davoudi et al. (2012) note that the disadvantages of our cosmopolitan everyday lives lie within the constant flux of unpredictable events, having to navigate through uncertainties and to improvise in unprecedented dangers. The most recent example of this duality at stake is the COVID-19 pandemic, which brought along uncertainty, fear and it imposed various restrictions on personal and social freedoms. As a result, scholars estimate that the global impact of the COVID-19 crisis calls for further social research to expand on various global perspectives and understandings of crises on various social levels (Lupton & Willis, 2021, p. 5). By these means, not only does the COVID-19 pandemic serve as a vivid proof that studying global crises is of utmost importance, but it also reveals the necessity to learn from its concrete impacts on global society. Moreover, the unfortunate actual global turbulence of the post-COVID crisis, the return of warfare on European soil, various economic instabilities, latent violence and conflicts, migration, forced displacement, corrupted media and politics, altogether with a heavily deteriorating climate change, imperatively bring forward the question regarding the actual meaning of crisis nowadays. Alternatively, where does crisis begin and end, and how to respond to a chronic destabilization and a perpetual state of crisis?

In fact, much of the research addressing global crises predominantly focuses on the state level – the leadership demonstrated by political figures (DeBardeleben, 2020), the most effective national policies (Anholt & Sinatti, 2019), as well as the various types of governments’ communication strategies (Schneider et al., 2021). In contrast, much less scholar effort is devoted to learn from the lived experiences of individuals in times of global crises (Lupton & Willis, 2021). This shortage could be interpreted as a missed research opportunity, especially if we consider Isaiah Berlin’s position. Notably, the political philosopher believes that “At crucial moments – the impulse given freely by an individual – can send things spinning in some unforeseen and unforeseeable direction” (as cited in Bogdanor, 2023). By these means, incorporating the individual unit into global study scopes bears the opportunity to inform newfangled constituents in crisis research. Moreover, as part of a broader reflection on crisis and history, Bogdanor (2023) asserts that to understand the modern world, one needs to primarily engage with the particularities and authenticity of single individuals that shape societies.

However, apart from singular instances of heroic social leaders, we do not know much on how ordinary individuals live through or respond to crisis. Still, existing research conveys a number of valuable findings when it comes to the particular skills, required for crisis response. For instance, preparedness, anticipation and critical thinking can stimulate novel approaches to problem-solving (Iacoviello & Charney, 2014). On the one hand, individuals have to be flexible, prepared and resilient (Anholt & Sinatti, 2019; Boin & Lodge, 2016). On the other hand, they must maintain authenticity and willingness for continuous civic agency (Davoudi et al., 2012). Nonetheless, current crisis research neglects to elaborate on how these skills can be applied to actual dynamic, and even amplified¹ contexts of global crises (Schneider et al., 2021).

Concretely, Gigliotti (2016) comments that scholars could gain new insights on crisis if they study the inherently improvisational and spontaneous actions involved in crisis response. Notably, when examining leaders’ experiences with adversities, Gigliotti (2016) observes that crises often elicit improvised, experimental and performative embodiment of various roles. For instance, leaders report to have embodied confident roles even they lacked full conviction regarding the most promising solutions. Thus, Gigliotti’s work demonstrates a vivid opportunity to pair crisis research with theater methods. Similarly, Elizabeth Angel-Perez (2022) remarks that crises have an underlying theatrical perspective. Otherwise stated, she pinpoints that the link between crisis and theater is contained precisely in the ability to foster instances of ontological suspension (as cited in Wallace et al., 2022, pp. 177–178). Therefore, crises and theater can both act as common ground of encounter, improvisation and collective action, thereby creating opportunities for learning and reinvention of meanings (Wallace et al., 2022). Indeed, Gigliotti (2016) also finds that employing reflexivity both during and following crisis is crucial in order to learn from it and subsequently foster change. Nonetheless, he acknowledges that crises leave little space for reconsidering the values that dictate certain responses, and the ways in which decisions and actions are communicated.

Precisely, participatory theater methods developed as instruments for collective reflection to encourage social change (Vaseva, 2020), thereby offering suitable research methods to explore crisis response. Notably, theater practitioner, Bertolt Brecht, also known as an eager crisis respondent, utilized theater to engage spectators in critical thinking regarding social issues (Cohen-Cruz, 2010; Rocamora, 2023, p. 24). Consequently, influenced by Brecht’s convictions and Paulo Freire’s educational participatory action research (PAR), a variety of participatory theater methods developed, which merge the barriers between actors and spectators, such as forum theater (Boal, 1992) and playback theater (Fox & Salas, 2021). More precisely, in forum theater, the focus falls on intervening on stage to remedy social issues, whereas in playback theater, an inherent human connection is woven through the personal stories that are being shared and “played back” for the narrators.

Therefore, this work seeks to explore how crisis responses are collectively communicated and negotiated across a series of improvisations in participatory theater workshops, conducted with individuals in migration.² To do so, it firstly looks at the theoretical underpinnings of crisis, as well as the role of communication in crisis response. Drawing on Éric Dacheux’s (2023) misunderstanding concept, it suggests that interpersonal communication entrains individuals to the uncertainty of communication, whereby it provokes novel ways to express, collaborate and creatively co-construct social meanings. Then, this work deploys a theater-based methodology, whose logic is guided by both forum and playback theater methods, and complemented by exercises from Mildred Masheder’s handbook (Masheder, 2005) “Jeux coopératifs pour bâtir la paix” (Cooperative games to build peace). Owing to the ever-changing contingent of participants, and their limited French language proficiency, the research does not demand for direct interventions, as required by forum theater, and neither seeks for personal stories, as it is dictated in traditional playback theater. Instead, it approaches social issues indirectly by facilitating social interactions through spontaneous movement and play. Both the structure and substance of these participatory theater workshops feed into mini models for crises since participants immerse in various realities and collectively improvise in multiple roles and situations. Consequently, by exploring the creative and messy instances of miscommunication, involved in participants’ performative and improvised response to crisis, this article demonstrates that crises render tangible opportunities for learning, reinventing and renegotiating realities.

What Does Crisis Mean Nowadays?

Much of the current research on crises seems to predominantly concentrate on studying most effective responses and management (Falkheimer & Heide, 2006; Zhao, 2020). However, Zhao (2020) remarks that the phenomenon is often stripped away from some of its vast social constitutes, thereby oversimplifying it and impeding the practical applications of crisis research – especially concerning the study of actual experiences and impacts of crises for society. This being said, the issue with studying individual experiences of various crises derives from the subjectivity of interpretation. Broadly speaking, the definition of the term crisis is rather large. It incorporates a multitude of human experiences, different understandings, interpretations and meanings (Gigliotti, 2020). For instance, when we refer to crisis, we mostly evoke the term’s connotations of sudden and unpredictable events, damage, conflict, unrest, problems or insecurity (Anholt & Sinatti, 2019). However, from a historical perspective, crisis has also been perceived as the carrier of modernity and progress (Sidiropoulou, 2022, p. 371). Accordingly, scholars, interested in crisis research, increasingly investigate the phenomenon from a social constructivist perspective in attempts to better understand how social actors experience and narrate crisis (Falkheimer & Heide, 2006; Frandsen & Johansen, 2017; Zhao, 2020). Therefore, studying global crises is especially complex when it comes to addressing all the different types of crisis, the variety of actors, discourses and material aspects in the research field.

For instance, Spector (2019) suggests a useful ontological divide of crisis’ definition, whereby crisis-as-event connotes a particular situation, and crisis-as-claim depicts the objective/subjective descriptions and interpretations that narrate crises. Additionally, as Spector (2019) suggests, new perspectives and research directions arise in regards to the construction of crises as well as their legitimization when the notion of power is taken into account. As he proposes, crisis inquiries can only benefit from the employment of extra critical thinking when it comes to untangling whose interests are discursively shaping the phenomenon. Although this article does not further delve into how crises are constructed and by whom, it must still highlight the crucial and timely need of works with such focus. Notably, intriguing findings can emerge, provided that Berth Spector’s work is combined with the securitization theory, developed by Ole Wœver, Barry Buzan and the broader contribution of the Copenhagen school of security studies. The theory stipulates that securitization speech acts construct a specific issue into an existential threat, thereby necessitating extraordinary measures (Buzan et al., 1998, p. 21). In turn, this does not only create space for panic politics but can also majorly shift international security. By these means, future research can incorporate such theoritizations, and the construction of normalcy, manifested in a multitude of concepts surrounding crisis, such as polycrisis or anti-crisis (Roitman, 2013; Whiting, 2023).

Moreover, Sidiropoulou (2022) claims that the preponderance of global crises calls for further scholar examination on the ways in which social turbulence can be transformed into an urge for the emergence of a new social order. Notably, she defines crisis as a magnifying glass, whereby presenting the necessity to tackle issues through new means (Sidiropoulou, 2022, p. 2). However, Sidiropoulou notes that this definition of crisis as an opportunity for change, which dates back to the wisdom of the Ancient Greeks, is currently much less prominent. One of the causes, she stipulates, owes to the frequent use of the term crisis by nowadays media, which transforms it into a buzzword and evokes overwhelming sentiments of urgency, fear, social fatigue and desperation. As a result, the accumulation of difficult sentiments impede perceptions of crisis as a necessity for drastic change from emerging. In relation, Andrew Simon Gilbert (as cited in Sidiropoulou, 2022, p. 2) warns that neglecting the call for social revision and not resorting to action can aggravate post-crisis decay. Thus, learning from global crises depends on maintaining a delicate balance between responsible individuals and collective efforts – precisely the research area concerning crises and society, which Zhao (2020) pinpoints as being lagged.

The aforementioned tendency to respond to global crises with fear, described by theater scholar Avra Sidiropoulou (2022) resonates with the semiotician Juri Lotman’s (2009) theory of explosions. Lotman explains that crises, such as collective social ruptures, political turmoil, overhaul of political ideas can offer the opportunity to contest and reinvent commonly accepted social meanings. However, they also provoke fear and dread, and threaten to elicit a response in the form of closure and avoidance. Furthermore, experiencing fear can bring outdated social opinions, and solidify previous cultural and psychological models of thinking (as cited in Monticelli, 2020, p. 198). These contradictory forces impede a healthy reflection on the new impacts of crisis, hence hindering opportunities for subsequent change. As an example, Sidiropoulou (2022, pp. 6–13) interprets the rise of nationalist far-right parties, social polarization and fragmentation as crises responses provoked by urgency and fear.

In agreement, psychology scholars, Iacoviello and Charney (2014) suggest that initial responses to crisis might firstly be aimed at avoiding the situation, alleviating fear, and offering immediate relief. To illustrate, Iacoviello and Charney (2014) paint these processes as mitigating the mental and emotional consequences in critical situations, also referred to as coping strategies. These mechanisms can range from various cognition or behaviors, employed individually or socially (Iacoviello & Charney, 2014). Regardless, Iacoviello and Charney concede that confronting fear is one crucial predicament to learn from crisis. Therefore, in the light of accruing global crises, it is evident that further research is needed to help untangling and deconstructing how crisis affects our lived experiences. Most importantly, novel findings are essential to foster reflection on social insecurities and fear, in order to heal, rethink current values and attitudes and find non-habitual and creative solutions (Sellars, 2021, as cited in; Sidiropoulou, 2022, p. 4). Easier said than done, the question still stands – how can the suffering in crisis be transformed into a tangible opportunity for improvement?

Thriving in Crisis?

Scholar engagement with crisis ranges from studying practices and responses from corporate organizations, environment and disaster studies, communication and media studies, education to social sciences and psychology (Davoudi et al., 2012). Despite the eminent differences in the fields’ focal points, disciplines all seem to assert that resilience is the most promising response mechanism in addressing all kinds of insecurity (Davoudi et al., 2012). Having become one of the most fashionable terms, resilience refers to the adaptive characteristics to cope, recover and even find the silver lining in crisis (Anholt & Sinatti, 2019; Iacoviello & Charney, 2014, p. 2). In fact, researchers claim that responding with resilience is much more influential than attempting to prevent or anticipate issues. This owes to the fact that resilient individuals survive adversity by adapting and learning from difficulties (Anholt & Sinatti, 2019; Boin & Lodge, 2016). Thus, resilience, has become the antidote to complex protracted crises, as well as a dominant crisis response.

However, scholars interested in resilience, warn that the term should not be understood as a simplistic individual trait, nor a one-time instance, followed by the return to social conformity after crisis (Anholt & Sinatti, 2019; Davoudi et al., 2012; B. Evans & Reid, 2013; Schmidt, 2014). Rather, it should be perceived as a continuous process, in which adopting an active social mind-set can influence and alter the course of critical events (Chandler & Reid, 2016, p. 53; Davoudi et al., 2012). More precisely, in order for crisis to be transformed into opportunity, individuals should not passively endure the shock and return to the previous normal state. Instead, they should experiment and evolve. By these means, resilience is never fully accomplished, but it is a performative concept, whereby the fluctuation of disruptions enables ever-evolving and ongoing processes of communication, improvement and transformation.

Alternatively, the complex ways in which individuals face disruptions, communicate and collectively (re)construct their realities is understood as the communication theory of resilience (Wilson et al., 2021). Notably, Wilson et al. (2021) summarize that when faced with adversity, social actors enact resilience through five notable processes – crafting normalcy, affirming identity, maintaining social networks, constructing alternative solutions and taking productive actions while back-grounding negative emotions. What stands out in all of these processes, is the overarching role of communication factors in crisis response, such as the connection, exchange and negotiation of meanings with oneself and with others. Likewise, Winters et al. (2015) ground their assessment of effectively navigating through crisis within the importance of nurturing personal mental health and social collaboration. Therefore, responding to disruptions with resilience is dependent on cultivating, communicating and performing a delicate equilibrium between the self and the others. These continuous, reflexive, and collective processes enable social agents to build upon passive returns to normalcy, and seek for an alternative status-quo instead.

The aforementioned discussion exhibits that pursuing change is not a solely individualistic effort, but rather a collective process, in which ideas are continuously exchanged and communicated. In support, Van der Kolk (2014, p. 94) refers to disaster response findings which all assert that social support is the most essential armor against stress. This owes to the very design of human brains to function collectively, whereby connections and relationships with others serve a nurturing purpose for leading meaningful lives (Van der Kolk, 2014, pp. 93–94). Accordingly, Panzarella et al. (2006) find that in the absence of social networks humans experience loneliness, which creates negative perceptions of oneself and the world (as cited in Iacoviello & Charney, 2014). Moreover, recent evidence throughout the COVID-19 pandemic only confirms the importance of social presence and communication in overcoming crisis. For example, the period of social isolation confronted many individuals to loneliness and desolation. These culminated with reported suicidal thoughts, so much that some governments initiated counter-loneliness measures (Ryall, 2023). Additionally, the harmful effects of loneliness were compared to the detrimental effect of smoking fifteen cigarettes a day (Kroll, 2022). What is even more intriguing, is that social overexposure (aloneliness) can equally introduce feelings of desolation (Coplan et al., 2021). Although social support is essential for crisis response and management, the actual quality of communication in such networks also plays a significant role, thereby opening more complex questions regarding its precise role for navigating through crises.

The Role of Communication in Coping with a Wide Range of Crises

As discussed, responding and coping with a wide range of crises requires a communicative society, in which moments of destabilization prompt social dialogue and negotiation. Similarly, Dominique Wolton (2016) understands communication as a bond for democratic society, thereby rendering all social existence dependent on communication (as cited in Dacheux, 2023, p. 27). We all agree – communication is an important ingredient for crisis response, but what exactly is implied by communication? For instance, Éric Dacheux (2023, p. 34) defines it as collective processes of exchange and constructions of meaning that permit individuals to reach agreements and evolve together. The formulation of collective construction implies that when we communicate, a constant research of the right distance and equilibrium between the sensible and intelligible is performed (Dacheux, 2023, p. 131). In other words, communication entails adjustment in real time, improvisation with new contexts, and in accordance to the input of others. Thus, meaningful co-construction inevitably requires to accept the certainty to misunderstand (Dacheux, 2023). By these means, communication is at the heart of interpreting and narrating crises, whereby the way in which social actors communicate their experiences can eventually reinvent social paradigms and reshape society.

However, Dacheux (2023) picks up on a common misconception, according to which communication always results with mutual comprehension. For Dacheux (2023), to misunderstand someone is much more common than actually comprehending them fully. Furthermore, Dacheux (2023) asserts that successful communication is an illusion since one cannot fully ensure that the message which is intended and transmitted, is also the same that it is being decoded and interpreted. Alternatively, he argues that the uncertainty of communication is an omnipresent element, to which we are naturally accustomed – a simple look, or a joke can transform into a conflict, a friendly conversation could end up in a crisis (Dacheux, 2023). As an example, since we cannot be fully sure to comprehend our interlocutors, we employ reformulation, clarification and improvisation skills, which are also all necessary in the context of crisis.

Additionally, it might appear easier to exchange with people who operate with the same cultural codes. However, the risk of misunderstanding stands even when interlocutors share the same language, culture, interests, and are part of each other’s habitual social circles. Drawing on Dacheux’s lens, misunderstanding is inherent in communication and it is not dependent on cultural (dis)similarities. Rather, it is a question of one’s willingness to invest time and honesty in order to ensure that meaning is truly collectively constructed. Therefore, Dacheux’s (2023) conceptualization of communication as being inherently based on uncertainty, ambivalence and even surprise, permits to study valuable response mechanisms that we already naturally adopt in dealing with the uncertainties of crisis. Misunderstandings not only entrain individuals to the uncertainty of communication, they also exercise imagination, emotional intelligence and train capacities to face insecurity. In turn, they provoke novel ways to express, collaborate and creatively co-construct social meanings.

Nevertheless, Dacheux (2023) notes that our economic global systems impose an accelerated vision of time, which leaves little opportunities for creating proximity, nor the willingness to engage with misunderstandings. More explicitly, Dacheux (2023, p. 175) asserts that nowadays social life is increasingly creating hierarchical and discriminatory social rhythms and spaces. In turn, he specifies that these restrict critical reflection over one’s attitudes or the willingness to engage with what is different than the habitual. As a result, these obstacles prevent meaningful communication through co-construction, which requires a) time and space, b) mutual respect, and most crucially, c) not to reduce the liberty of the other by imposing ready-made meanings (Dacheux, 2023, p. 101). Therefore, the conditions for eloquent and honest communication, thus, highlight in themselves, many of the obstacles we meet in our current international societies that prevent us from adequately responding to global crises.

However, for Jones and Bejan (2019), the problem owes precisely to the mutual respect that is imperative in nowadays overly tolerant societies. More precisely, Jones and Bejan (2019) assert that tolerant societies miss precious chances to engage in valuable misunderstandings since they are too preoccupied with politeness, carefulness not to offend the other, or with worrying regarding the manner, in which they phrase opinions. Otherwise stated, the desire to avoid misunderstandings at any cost, ends up being much more costly, as it prevents societies from advantageously building on miscommunication. Consequently, the value of engaging with misunderstandings and abandoning the comfort of the habitual, is where Jones and Bejan (2019) and Dacheux (2023) all share an agreement. They assert that when we get out of routinized meanings, taught interpretations and comprehensions, simple fundamental human values can take over. In turn, connecting through such basic, yet constructive similarities render communication all the more inestimable and exhibit how social agility and agency are built.

Methods: Framing Responses to Global Crisis Through Participatory Theater

Pertaining to Dacheux’s (2023) conceptualization of communication, this article proceeds by exploring its role for crisis response in a series of participatory theater workshops with individuals in migration, held at the Roseraie integration center in Geneva, Switzerland. In contrast to traditional theater research, which works with established groups, the respective workshops ran with an open policy, thereby bringing together newcomers and regular attendees despite the notable difference in their familiarity or appreciation for participatory theater. Having been conducted as part of a broader PhD research on everyday peace, fifteen participatory theater workshops explored how notions of day-to-day peace are constructed and enacted, notably through collaboration, participation and conflict transformation (Nocheva, 2023). Thus, when participants engage in exploring solutions to everyday conflicts through play, these actions also provide a suitable context for the investigation of misunderstandings, recreation of social scripts and the role of communication in the exploration of fictional crises.

In detail, the Roseraie center proposes various weekly activities for foreign individuals with all kinds of migration trajectories,³ hence working with a diverse and ever-changing contingent. In practical terms, newly arrived individuals in Geneva frequent the same premises as those who have been attempting to settle in the canton for a number of years. Thus, each workshop lasts for two hours, and welcomes up to twelve participants with short or long-term immigrant, international student, or refugee experience. Notably, attendees have differing nationalities and cultures, mixed age, backgrounds and languages, as well as a very limited French proficiency. Eventually, hundred and sixty individuals take part, most of whom participate once or twice, with some participants, who commit on a longer term.

Each workshop is guided by the logic of forum and playback theater methods, with exercises oriented toward improvisation. The concrete research design emphasizes on corporal expression, working with imagery, and exploring various mediums for collective constructions, borrowed by Mildred Masheder’s (2005) handbook “Jeux coopératifs pour bâtir la paix” (Cooperative games to build peace). In brief, individuals go through a series of exercises for introduction, warm up, games and perform in common social situations. For instance, warm-up stages can include mirror exercises, communication with gestures, listening and coordination skills as well as expression through music instruments and movement. Main activities require collective improvisation of everyday or fictional situations, ranging from grocery shopping, organizing parties, transforming conflicts with neighbors to abductions by aliens, journeys to the moon, and representing destiny. Otherwise stated, these activities develop cooperation, thereby offering insights into how meaning is co-constructed through attention, patience and active listening. Notably, due to the participatory character of this work, each individual suggests, discusses and contributes toward the collective improvisation of short scenes. Additionally, since exercises unfold by working in pairs, or in groups, they inevitably entail instances of experimentation with one’s role, social negotiation and collaboration (Burbridge & Stevenson, 2019; Cohen-Cruz, 2010; Feldhendler, 2005).

Undoubtedly, the success of working with individuals in migration opens the necessity for further work and for projects encompassing longer durations. In turn, these will permit for the exploration of other social theater methods, such as puppetry, theater of shadows, or the complete versions of forum theater (Boal, 1992) and playback theater (Fox & Salas, 2021), which all demand a more serious and durable commitment. On the one hand, the weaknesses of this participatory theater research lie in the ever-changing contingent of individuals, paired with the short duration of only four months. On the other hand, Geneva-based scholars, Burton-Jeangros et al. (2021) mention that whenever research projects with individuals in migration in Geneva are possible, it is especially difficult to obtain the trust of participants. Therefore, this research not only brings valuable insights for the Geneva context, but mostly provides an unconventional and fulfilling practice for the participants themselves. Although there are numerous existing theater projects with individuals in migration in Geneva, they emphasize on producing aesthetically pleasing final representations. What tends to lack, are projects, with which individuals can experiment with social actions without their exposure and the public judgment in return.

Normalizing Misunderstanding

Essentially, the core of this research context accounts for a mini model of global society, and as Daniel Wetzel puts it, powerful findings can emerge from participatory theater with individuals from all over the globe (as cited in Sidiropoulou, 2022, p. 56). Not only does such international context give insights into processes of interpersonal communication, but it also reveals important strategies for responding to crises. Notably, participatory theater workshops instill crises for this mini global society for multiple reasons: a) cultural diversity; b) already existing instability in their social context; c) lack of French language proficiency d) unfamiliarity with the character of participatory work and e) risk-taking, entailed by the structure of participatory theater as a living art, in which collective constructions dictate unpredictable results. All these factors strongly contribute to the initial state of disorientation, destabilization and crisis, especially in the absence of an established cohort.

For example, most participants are not familiar with theater as a participatory experience, and initially expect to be an audience. Moreover, the requirement for contribution is not characteristic for other activities proposed by the center. Thus, at first, learning about the new dimension of theater as a collective endeavor induces fear, awkwardness, and crisis, subsequent to which, some participants take the decision to withdrawal. Concretely, in the very first minutes of each workshop, an uncomfortable atmosphere reigns, and participants cope with the awkwardness by either being silent and observant, or by being occupied with their phones. Put this way, participatory theater workshops could be perceived as yet another source of uncertainty and stress. As Burton-Jeangros et al. (2021) explain, in the unpredictable daily lives of individuals in migration in Geneva, they engage in temporary work, lack a certain schedule, and tend to do long transportation commutes for certain activities. Furthermore, the aforementioned fluctuating daily forces and processes are exacerbated by dealing with unfamiliar set of rules, and social customs, as well as accepting to live with constant linguistic uncertainties and misunderstandings. In turn, adapting one’s communication strategies can be destabilizing, and can impair the confidence to trust one’s own social resources of meaningful construction (Cuche, 2010). Consequently, the workshops not only offer collective laboratories for sharing and tackling ambiguities, but also provide an intense possibility for human connection, and exploration of emotions.

Positioned in the context of an ordinary day, theatrical transformations require the ability to abandon one’s reality and immerse in a state of playfulness. Alternatively, the crisis-like destabilization mainly owes to the spontaneous interactions and improvisations of participants, switching between roles, and being seen by others in the state of play. For instance, they can find themselves representing various objects and roles, instructed by other participants – e.g. table, clock, astronaut, policeman. Such an open display of creativity is perceived by many as a risk to receive social judgment, which is why participants tend to protect themselves from exaggerated scenes. Therefore, both the structure and the substance of the workshops are destabilizing due to the mutual discoveries and co-constructions, produced and enabled by various realities that come into play.

However, participants who take the risk to display vulnerabilities and pinpoint a common social issue receive admiration and empathy. They remind all their “colleagues” that even when they are feeling socially shy, courage is a necessary ingredient in turning frightening events around. For example, during an exercise of collective story building, participants exchange imaginary objects. Eventually, when the object reaches me, as the facilitator, I decide to place it in my pocket with the intent to subsequently propose a new guideline. However, one participant perceives this appropriation as unjust, comes up and demands for the object to be taken out. Subsequently, the participant places the imaginary object in the plant pot nearby. After witnessing this scene, everybody claps, for the message is extremely clear – a symbolic gesture against human greed, followed by the most simple conflict resolution – to take care of nature. Therefore, each short scene is an instance of a communicative performance of resilience where the initially threatening theater space is transformed through collective creation. The participants are not returning to their initial state – both actors and spectators retain a novel perspective. Pertaining to Dacheux’s conceptualization of communication as co-construction, this owes to participants’ trust and investment of time and energy into the process of collective creation.

Moreover, what is unique to this research, is the common departure point of misunderstanding. Since participants are in the process of learning French language, they are more certain to misunderstand rather than comprehend, whereby the language barrier contributes to the shared normalization of misunderstanding. In turn, this installs a space where communication is celebrated and it stimulates creative responses to messiness and ambiguity. For instance, attendees who speak two different languages to each other, manage an engaging conversation by exploring new resources through which to communicate, connect and share their ideas. In support, Thompson (2009) also characterizes participatory theater as a collective endeavor, during which one is quickly confronted with misunderstandings, differing styles of interpretation and a diverse enactment of social scripts. Therefore, the respective workshops exhibit the link between misunderstanding and possibilities for simple human connection, as previously discussed with Jones and Bejan (2019) and Dacheux’s (2023). Provided that, broadly in society, instances of misunderstanding are not merely understood as the products of cultural differences, but as vital elements of communication, creativity and imagination can mobilize frameworks to tackle crises more resourcefully, thereby inducing change.

Furthermore, precisely owing to this freedom to make mistakes and explore chaos, Daniel Wetzel labels the theatrical space as a generator for social reflexivity (as cited in Sidiropoulou, 2022, p. 64). By these means, participatory theater develops a rich palette of communication skills to express, propose and reformulate, thereby also exhibiting the social perceptions and responsibility, created by words and actions. Alternatively, the encounter with the diversity of interpretation, stimulates reflexivity on one’s underlying and potentially (un)conscious coping mechanisms, perceptions, thereby allowing participants to witness how these are being perceived, performed and reinvented during group-work (Feldhendler, 2005). Therefore, the respective workshops not only echo Gigliotti’s (2016) previously discussed findings concerning improvisation and reflexivity during and after crises, but they also provide a nuanced and detailed picture of how responses to crisis can evoke meaningful and reflective improvement – both individually and socially. Otherwise stated, subsequent reflection on the improvised chaotic element permits to trace how learned communication habits are accommodated by social structures, hence also creating remedies that would have otherwise taken days of rigorous brainstorming.

Alternative Communication Through Movement

Furthermore, according to Dacheux (2023, p. 192), listening skills are becoming a scarce luxury for communication in our modern society. He claims that this owes to the social media templates of communication, whose design permits for expressive energy to be released but remains limited for constructing collective meanings. If so, then the aforementioned social disconnection endangers two fundamental components of communication – expression and listening, which are also essential for a democratic debate in a healthy society. To an extent, participatory theater remedies these dynamics by creating complex social ecosystems, in which processes of producing and receiving meaning – expression and listening become tangible. Namely, participatory theater exhibits the otherwise unconscious elements of communication, described by Dacheux (2023), such as non-verbal cues, movement, posture, gestures and gaze, hence finely attuning participants’ listening receptors. In support, Van der Kolk (2014) notes that humans can listen alternatively as they intuitively pick up and interpret even the most delicate facial mimics, such as brow-lifting, wrinkles or trembling.

Participants’ intuitive listening receptors are evidently at work – although attendees are strangers who meet for the first time at the workshops, the most basic corporal exercises, such as clapping at the same time, counting together, moving across the space, or engaging with mirroring the bodily movements of others exhibit an acute synchronicity of listening. Therefore, the respective theater workshops train emotional intelligence and intuition, whereby evoking often taken-for-granted, yet universal bodily resources for willful and fulfilling communication. For instance, depending on the context, obtaining an eye-contact might ensure participation, cooperation or withdrawal. Importantly, the fact that participants construct and communicate bodily allows for alternative routes of learning to take place. In support, Aschner-Restrepo’s (2023, p. 156) viewpoint on embodied memory in theater suggests that there are experiences which can only be learned, remembered and communicated by and through the body. Similarly, Van der Kolk (2014, p. 100) notices that in order to create safe spaces, in which social engagement can emerge, experts should facilitate rhythmic corporal movements.

In relation, Edward Hall (1981) argues that individuals who wish to emancipate from established social scripts, and seek to introduce change, should exercise their inherent listening skills and social intuition (as cited in Dacheux, 2023, p. 193). Pertaining to these findings, the respective participatory theater workshops display matching outcomes. The verbal misunderstandings release space for tuning in on alternative and richer channels of communication – by listening to movements, witnessing and sharing emotions. Thus, communication through movement stimulates attentive listening, whereby it provides collective ways to tackle social debates indirectly and construct unexpected collective solutions. Simply put, communication through gestures and movement is born out of the fundamental human resemblances that Jones and Bejan (2019) and Dacheux (2023) also discuss as contingent for robust societies. These observations contribute to crisis analysis by demonstrating the enabling role of misunderstandings which facilitates the use of alternative means and novel resources. More concretely, connecting to ourselves, and to others through basic corporal presence grants our bodies with a creative potential, for we could resort to one more communicative tool. These skills not only enrich our communication resources, but also demonstrate the active influence we have to alter situations – both of utter importance for responding to crisis.

Alternative Communication Through Laughter

Moreover, Dacheux (2023) extends his argument regarding an increasing social disconnection by noting that nowadays’ accelerated world leaves little space for expressing vulnerabilities and emotions. Participatory theater practices respond to this need since they facilitate, as Wetzel suggests, a time bubble in which we can pause and live through emotions. Furthermore, he notes that participatory theater activities reduce patterns of overthinking and enable the synchronization with one’s senses (as cited in Sidiropoulou, 2022, p. 64). Interestingly, Wetzel’s observation is approximately what has been received as a feedback from one of the workshop’s participants. Precisely, they enjoy not to overthink and feel like they overcome their inherent nervousness. Additionally, they describe it as gaining the confidence to do things that they would perceive as awkward, that normally require that they would have to be tipsy (Participant Feedback 1). Besides, toward the end of each session, most participants report their impressions – to have acquired an increased connection with their bodies, confidence and pleasant fatigue. Therefore, workshops not only offer a welcome pause from the daily routine, but they also frame a meaningful social space to express a range of emotions, overcome fears and connect with others. Indeed, if we refer to findings by Sims and Stephens (2005) concerning the collective expression of energy, which is released during social rituals and celebrations, then it becomes evident that living collective emotions is equally important for crisis response.

For example, another participant perceives instances of laughter as indications that everybody shares positive emotions (Participant Feedback 2). Initially, most attendees struggle to connect to their senses and rather concentrate on following the exercises’ guidelines correctly. Importantly, for individuals in migration, the right to laugh and have fun is an arduous conquest. In other terms, most participants do not feel entitled to engage in fun activities, since they think that they should rather invest time in useful ventures, such as learning French or job hunting (Participant Feedback 3). This is why instances of laughter signify the liberation of expressive energy, enabled by mutual construction. Additionally, laughter solidifies the link between body and mind, whereby it affirms the experience of collective emotions and reinforces a sense of belonging. Therefore, embracing laughter can help individuals regain a physical and emotional equilibrium during crisis. It can help to assimilate differences and offers an easily accessible route to collectively deal with destabilization.

Furthermore, the aforementioned feedback pick up on existing research, according to which laughter is the most successful coping mechanism during a crisis (BBC News, 2020; Rayfield, 2021; Wiseman, 2010). Undoubtedly, laughter has extensively been analyzed as a relief method in crisis, as a way of regaining control over stress, as well as achieving a meaningful connection with someone (Freud, 1905; Wiseman, 2010). Furthermore, Merrill (1988, p. 277) states that laughter occurs when discrepancies in social life are pointed out. By these means, laughter opens up space for remedying and altering the status-quo. Additionally, laughter stands in opposition to fear, and as Lotman (2009) explains when fear is alleviated, closure and avoidance decrease, whereby opportunities to act and seek change emerge. For the present participatory theater crisis, it can be inferred that laughter occurs when trivial little ordinary situations are transformed into material for play. Laughing, thus, has a rich expressive potential, which is crucial for responding to global crises since it motivates a mind-set of transformation and it pinpoints socially relatable areas that necessitate change. Most importantly, laughter carries a communicative potential for co-construction – it is a catalyst of creation, affirming that a new shared meaning is collectively established.

Communication as an Inherently Creative Process

Thus far, the discussion exemplifies that communication is based on processes of misunderstanding, whereby the latter is the creative product of merging ideas and collective imagination. As stated by Dacheux (2023), when one person expresses some sort of information and the other one reads it through their personal lens, the product of their communication will be based on this mutual misunderstanding. This only further demonstrates the inherently creative character of communication – new means of communication are expressed to solve issues and reach understanding through new ideas. Thus, the role of communication in crisis response is fundamentally creative as it permits to experiment with new resources and ameliorate the previous original state of affairs. In relation, this cycle of events is commonly referred to as conceptual blending (V. Evans & Green, 2018). Notably, cognitive linguists explain that acquiring new ideas is the result of two different inputs blending abstract information. In turn, this blend crafts a new meaning, a novel emergent structure that is common to the respective inputs (V. Evans & Green, 2018, p. 404). Therefore, creativity emerges from misunderstanding, which allows for perpetual conceptual blending, that is, the coming into being of new and profoundly diverse ideas, and perceptions, themselves subject to new misunderstandings. Said differently, valuing misunderstanding, instantly means that we recognize and adopt its creative potential. It can be inferred that crises represent instances of unfamiliarity and misunderstandings, thereby necessitating improvised and creative responses that blend toward a new social status-quo.

Otherwise stated, conceptual blending results in new ideas, which are fed by imaginative and figurative processes from different inputs. In turn, the respective participatory theater workshops become a laboratory for conceptual blending. In it, creativity is the main ingredient to overcome instances of misunderstanding or crisis. For instance, when participants imagine that they are transported to various locations and experiment with multiple realities, they collectively share the unpredictability of life, trace the consequences of decisions that they would not take in their own worlds, hence creating many playful ecosystems and alternative ideas for the everyday (Vaseva, 2020). Despite being fictional, these constant processes of experimentation with unconventionality become compounds for active social agents – the aforementioned qualities that Davoudi et al. (2012) attribute to individuals who successfully navigate through crises.

Additionally, participatory theater allows to experiment with social roles that might otherwise never be performed in the context of everyday lives, thereby granting the opportunity to represent, witness and create desired changes. For example, during an exercise of improvisation, one group of participants performs the robbery of their colleague’s reading glasses. Immediately, a policeman appears swiftly on stage, chases the wrong-doer, reclaims the glasses and arrests them. When participants are midst the chasing scene, they storm outside in the garden, thereby transcending the captivating scene of restored justice to the passersby. The scene ends with an applause by all group members, and bystanders, who admire the courage to create and perform it. The respective scene, thus, demonstrates that the creative output not only represents an instance of flawless social justice. What is more, it actively catalyzes a desire for change among witnesses on the street. Although they gather that the scene takes place in concrete fictional circumstances, they share their wish that unjust situations of distress are equally resolved promptly in everyday life.

Creativity, and imagination can, thus, feed the desire for a better future and motivate action toward it. In conjunction, post-traumatic stress disorder specialist, Van der Kolk (2014, p. 32–55) emphasizes that creativity and imagination are the most crucial resources for well-being. Additionally, he asserts that responding to crisis with creativity is absolutely vital for maintaining a sense of hope and belonging. Most importantly, engaging in creative tasks offers opportunities for taking action toward healing following the destabilization of crisis or trauma. As evidence, he recalls the case of the five-year old Noam who witnessed the terrifying scene of the 9/11 attacks. In response, the child paints a picture of the destruction site and places a trampoline under the towers. Noam explains that it will help people to remain safe the next time they have to jump (Van der Kolk, 2014, p. 67). According to Van der Kolk, the imagined trampoline represents the process through which the child actively becomes an agent to his own rescue in digesting the trauma and consequently storing it properly in his memories. Therefore, this instance demonstrates that to our routinized minds of adults, creative responses might not be immediately apparent or available. Yet, facing the profound social instability and trauma, incurred by accruing crises, necessitates the possibilities to share and transcend these by giving voice to our imaginations.

In regards to the present research, the proof that imagination and creativity provoke civic action, through which the mind processes and heals, brings powerful predicaments to navigating through global crises. More concretely, faced with chronic crises, societies need to collectively heal by re-imagining their values as well as adopting attitudes to creatively transform uncertainties into opportunities for change. In actual terms, societies who make the decision to encourage imaginative and figurative processes, let new possible lenses for change to be communicated and to occur. One way of allowing more creativity is to accept, cherish and even encourage the plentiful sources of miscommunication and misunderstandings. The fascinating potency of imagination and creativity comes from the fact that there as as many solutions as individuals. Most importantly, these solutions could be experimented, blended and molded into a better tomorrow.

Ultimately, this work demonstrates that opportunity becomes possible through crisis, along with possibilities for learning and acquiring new perspectives on the habitual. The communication-centered findings throughout this work show that future inquiries should take into account the ordinary experience of individuals, continue with scrutiny concerning alternative ways of expression, communication and learning, as well as their role for healthy democratic societies. Mostly, future research should foster interdisciplinary dialogue, whose scholarships and methodological approaches can benefit from cross-fertilization in order to analyze discourses around crises as well as their concrete social impacts.

Conclusion

In summary, the present article posits that in a perpetual state of crisis, our global society needs to deconstruct social turbulence and perceive it as a turning point, whose destabilization offers to bring novel solutions. Fully conscious of the difficulties required to embody such viewpoints, the article urges its readers, and broadly all kinds of individuals, to reflect on their values, communicate creatively, imagine and enact the changes that they wish to create. Concretely, this work demonstrates that body language and movement represent alternative tools of expression and emotional response, thereby freeing opportunities for instinctive human reactions to emerge through laughter, creativity and imagination. Additionally, the article highlights the importance of reflecting upon our habitual responses to crisis, both during and following the disruption, so that we can learn from its destabilization and move forward in renegotiating change creatively.

To substantiate the aforementioned suggestions empirically, this work borrows Éric Dacheux’s (2023) misunderstanding concept, thereby demonstrating the crucial role of creative communication as a response to the uncertainty of global crises. Noteworthy, theater participants express observations that resemble Dacheux’s viewpoint. Notably, our society does not offer enough time to communicate well, albeit our significant need for shared meaningful moments. Therefore, in the hope that this work demonstrates the immense healing powers of alternative expression and communication, it suggests that global crises can only benefit from active citizens’ reflections, imaginations and their courageous enactments. Shifting our attitudes toward cherishing disagreement, normalizing miscommunication and confidently enacting the resources of our imaginations, thus outline at least a few steps on how to acquire active social mind-sets that catalyze change.

Ethics Consent

The participants can sign up and visit a theater workshop according to their own discretion. The La Roseraie association’s co-operation for access to their facilities serves as an additional ethical and safety layer. All participants have been provided with an ethics consent, which grants them with information about the research so that they can make an informed decision about whether or not they wish to take part. Subjects are given a participation information sheet, a consent form (both in English and French), as well as a visual chart outlining the same content, these can be provided upon request. These documents detail their right to withdrawal at any time, to refuse to take part in certain exercises at any time during the workshops, or to withdrawal their ideas for the period of two weeks following the completion of the workshop. Due to the nature of a collaborative action research, which is constructed by participants themselves, they remain free to determine the information they would like to share, hence leaving a possibility that mostly personal topics do appear. This is why, at the beginning of each session, participants are reminded of their rights to lack of judgment, listening, withdraw, to refuse, to skip certain exercises. Additionally, they are discouraged from sharing stories they deem as uncomfortable, traumatizing, or too personal. To reduce any group pressure on participating, options to opt out creatively are also provided throughout the workshops – through materials they can use, or designated places where they can stand, exit, or leave a note in case they would like to share any thoughts, concerns and impressions. The Statement of the Commission for Ethics in Research #39, Faculty of Social Sciences Charles University has approved of the application without reservations, on the 12^th of April 2022. This document can also be provided upon request.

Disclosure Statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

The article was created in the framework of Charles University’s funding agency SVV-260727 (“Conflict, communication and cooperation in contemporary politics“).

Notes on contributors

Nikolena Nocheva

Nikolena Nocheva has previously been a Teaching Assistant in “Approaches to Conflict and Violence” Faculty of Social Sciences at the Charles University, Prague. Her research as a PhD Candidate in Security Studies (International relations) explores the potential of art forms for social science inquiries, with a particular interest in engaging theatrical methods and tools for creative conflict transformation and everyday peace.

Notes

1. The term amplified refers to the phenomenon, described by Strekalova (2016), in which information distribution in times of crisis becomes exaggerated and confusing for individuals to sort out.

2. The term acknowledges the individuals’ dynamic life courses, who, at the time of the study, have relocated multiple times or report the possibility to do so again in the future. Participants are short or long-term immigrants, international students, and refugees from all over the globe.

3. More on the Roseraie center d’accueil: https://centre-roseraie.ch/index.php?cID=193