In my previous post, I use the term global majority. I am very happy with this new phase because it seems to replace the familiar POC or the AMP, which have their problems: global majority gets away from the idea that people of colour are always minorities and seems to speak from a sensitivity that does not presume whiteness to be the default setting. I am very fond of precision in language. This might look like the latest bit of political correctness gone mad, but actually it is clear and concise, although I am immediately finding some problems with it.
I do realise saying actually is never a good sign.
However, in a show about Malay citizen of Singapore (Siapa Yang Bawa Melayu Aku Pergi? (Who Took My Malay Away?)), the problems of talking about majority and minority became very evident. This production is about being a minority and how that feels both as a migrant in another country and at home and, in this context, the term global majority seems to lack the necessary nuance to describe the situation of the performer, Faizal. Saipa concentrates on the lived experience of a man and his family - and his race - who are a minority in a nation that has their language as its national language.
For another example work made by Asian British artists (Coconut at the Space) is shoved in the same category as work made by Asian artists living in Bangladesh, India, Pakistan and so on (Why English? at Zoo Southside). British Asian artists are grappling with dual identity, the consequences of migration, sets of cultural influence et cetera et cetera et cetera. These are shared concerns across national and racial boundaries, but do not necessarily align with the concerns of a dancer/actor from Bangalore who is wondering why she speaks English as her first language. There is, of course, the connection of the colonial legacy, but Coconut does foreground this theme.
In the end, all categories are just an attempt to put a label on some vague area of existence, to objectify certain elements of a performance in order to be able to talk about the work through vapid generalisations.
So, perhaps it is best to skip this post unless you are interested in why I am throwing around vapid generalisations. Back to Siapa Yang Bawa Melayu Aku Pergi? (Who Took My Malay Away?). Presented in the form of a lecture, examining how the minority Malay people in Singapore are marginalised by majority and how they struggle to maintain their culture through language, it is, in part, a eulogy for a lost alphabet as well as a personable and intimate portrait of one man’s journey. However, what it makes clear is that calling a member of a global majority really ignores the points that he is trying to make about identity. I don’t want to start throwing statistics about, and I don’t want to look up which ethnic group is the global majority. And I’m increasingly finding even those familiar categories of identity, such as Southeast Asian, round, African, Afro-Caribbean, are not precise enough.
The amount of discomfort I am experiencing as I edit this post is probably telling. I am uncomfortable with the use of the word 'race'.
The existence and use of the phrase global majority expresses a deep desire for inclusion. It encourages a complexity of thought, recognition that whiteness is not the default. But it destroys individuality and the details. Take, for example, Coconut. On the one hand, it articulate the experiences of a British Asian young woman. Their ancestry is Pakistani but their daily life is clearly immersed in a London of Primark, clubs, parties and drinking. In the adventures of the protagonist, the echoes of fringe success Fleabag are very evident. There is a fascinating tension between these two sets of influences within script. Yet the temptation of using a term like global majority would place this alongside, again for example, Simon Thacker’s collaboration with dancers from Bangladesh. And the commonality between these works is, well, racist, isn’t it?
Today my support worker started talking about a new paradigm. The traditional notion of objects and things and lineal causality, apparently, is being replaced by a concentration on the relationship between things and objects. It is the invisible space, the negative space, between objects and things that is where the action happens. This really speaks to something I am trying to understand. I am just asking questions.
The something that I am trying to understand is how to talk about shows at the Fringe in a way that avoids falling into the trap of the individual review. On a simple level, this means preparing events, doing comparisons, rambling about stuff and mentioning artists in a vague and incoherent manner stop but the fringe’s a particular kind of event and every show opens in this particular context. It is why an hour 15 feels long during the fringe probably shorts in October.
Global majority, then, becomes a placeholder and nothing more. Looking back on my previous post, I realised that I talk about a company in South Africa, identifying them as a global majority company, and then assume that their status as global majority artists defines the nature of the work that they are making. I had another look at their press release and noticed that they were collaborating with the German company. Is this now European theatre? It has certainly been made to be well received in Europe. Can I claim the South African origins of the company in some way dictates the nature of the theatre that they make? Can I expand this definition beyond theatre makers themselves? Is the presence of the work at the fringe and expression of a desire for a certain sort of work made by global majority is to be watched by bourgeois white people in Edinburgh?
I am just asking questions. I am not Jordan Peterson.
Comments