Theatre artists have long attempted to prompt social change through performance; belief in this transformative theatrical power undergirds the work of contemporary practitioners of theatre for social change (TSC). In Theatre of Good Intentions, Snyder-Young boldly questions whether TSC can actually achieve such change. Through a series of clear and specific examples from her own work and literature documenting myriad other projects, she bravely reveals that TSC often fails to achieve its aims or, even worse, reinforces or amplifies existing hegemonic, oppressive conditions.
Much of the book articulates specific limitations on theatre's ability to create social change. For example, TSC artists frequently work with subaltern populations, but rarely engage directly with the individuals or institutions who have the actual power to enact social change. Further, creating democratic environments that give subaltern participants genuine agency in no way guarantees that they will align themselves with facilitators’ progressive goals; participants can easily propagate conservative, stereotypical or hegemonic thought. Many TSC artists come from places of relative privilege, preventing them from truly understanding the needs and desires of the (often ‘othered’) populations they hope to serve. Meanwhile, funding agencies and institutional authorities wield immense influence over TSC work, and their agendas are often steeped in neo-liberal ideologies. Regarding spectators, TSC artists cannot control their responses, and many audiences have limited desire to create social change.
Snyder-Young is neither pessimistic about nor antagonistic towards TSC, rather noting that critiquing TSC's limitations enables artists to ‘engage in a productive discussion of [their] opportunities to make change in an unjust world’ (p. 2). While recognizing that some limitations cannot be overcome, she argues that they can sometimes be turned into opportunities. For example, playtexts are relatively static, rarely changing between performances. However, Snyder-Young notes that UNIVERSAS made this limitation an opportunity with its play Ameriville: ‘By not “updating” the piece, [Hurricane] Katrina continues to be used as a symbol of social malaise in the United States and audiences members’ attention continues to be drawn to a set of problems in New Orleans that the mass media has long ceased to cover’ (p. 124, italics in original). Thus the static nature of theatre served the purpose of ‘remind[ing] audiences that problems remain after the gaze of the media has moved on’ (p. 124).
Snyder-Young also points to positive ‘unintended byproducts’ of TSC. For example, the director of a performance by incarcerated male youth was initially disappointed when performers struggled through their lines. Yet prison officials, funders and others in the audience saw this struggle and realized the inmates ‘were able to read and were willing to do the work to try’ (p. 8, italics in original), resulting in changing perceptions.
Snyder-Young ultimately argues that social-change-oriented artists must carefully consider ‘whether theatre is the intervention their circumstances and goals require’ (p. 139, italics in original). TSC practitioners should acknowledge that, in some situations, non-theatrical methods are best suited to addressing an issue. Sometimes, theatre's ‘liveness, its balance between intimacy and distance, its poeticism, and its playful collaboration are just the things a project needs. And sometimes they are not’ (p. 3, italics in original).
