by Joan French
Joan French is a member of Sistren, a women's theatre collective in Jamaica that uses drama as an educational tool among urban poor and rural women. (Their method is described in more detail below.) In addition to dramatic performances, Sistren puts out a quarterly newsletter covering women, arts and communication in the Caribbean and occasionally produces scripts, booklets, and photo exhibits. And the collective does even more: it also markets textile crafts depicting women's lives and in 1984 produced a video documentary, 'Sweet Sugar Rage," on its experience of using theater with female sugar workers.
Joan French contributed the following article to Ideas and Action, Vol. 163. No. 4, Ideas and Action is a bimonthly bulletin covering development issues and frequently featuring articles on Third World women. It is produced in English French and Spanish and distributed free of charge by the Freedom from Hunger Campaign, Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations. 00100 Rome, Italy.
Can drama be an effective tool for organization building'.' This is one of the questions which Sistren set out to answer when they started working in Sugartown, a low income housing complex on the fringes of a sugar estate in a rural parish in Jamaica.
Sistren is a women's theater collective established eight years ago [in 1977] to "perform drama about how women suffer and how men treat them bad." With the help of professionals and other resource persons, the collective has produced a series of plays on the conditions of women, drawing material from the personal experiences of its members and of other women and analyzing these in relation to the social fabric within which they take place. The group has gained international recognition because of its appealing combination of humor, social analysis and unique theatrical experimentation. Besides these major productions, Sistren also performs sketches, skits, and other creative devices t\)r popular education with smaller groups at community level. For more than six years, the collective had traveled across the country, organizing consciousness-raising workshops for women"s groups and bringing a women's perspective on social issues when performing in front of other sectors of the community men and youth.
Arriving in Sugartown, Sistren realized that the time had perhaps come, to concentrate on fewer groups and start building longer-term organizational structures. The experience we recount here relates how the collective used the drama to motivate and organize a group of women to act around their own concerns.
Sugartown was built for sugar workers in the 1970s, when the dominant philosophy of workers" participation brought workers material and other benefits, previously not available to them.
Most of the women in the community are connected to men who used to be employed on the sugar estate before the massive lay-offs in the sugar industry at the beginning of the 1980s. Most of them stay at home to look after their children or grandchildren; a few do odd jobs outside the community to hustle a little money of their own. Three women teach at the elementary school and one takes care of the children of those who work during the day. A few are ex-sugar workers but today none of the younger women work on the estate.
Sistren's decision to operate in the area arose from an interest in exploring the conditions of rural women and in particular female sugar workers, sugar being the oldest and most important agro-industry on the island.
At the first session, the team introduced themselves, and explained that they had come to learn from rural women about their problems and concerns, so that these could be shared with their urban sisters. They used a scene from their play. Domestic, to provoke the discussion and collect data and information about the lives of the women themselves. The scene was about rural-urban migration:
A woman goes to the city to work as a domestic, leaving her two children with their grandmother (her own mother). In the play, the domestic returns to the country on one of her rare days off and finds that her mother's health is failing. She is no longer the strong, healthy, hearty person she used to be, and finds it difficult to manage the task of bringing up the children. Discipline is breaking down because she is physically unable to force the kids to obey. These take advantage of the situation and carry out all kinds of pranks - beating the neighbor's donkey, lying up some other neighbor's goat, or just going down to the river for hours while there are things to be done at home. On top of all. money is short, both for looking after the children and after her own health. As there are no health services in the district, how can the grandmother find the money to travel miles to the nearest town and buy very expensive medicines?
So, in spite of her failing health, she has to keep on working to try and make ends meet. The only job available in the area is stone-breaking, using a hammer to break rocks into smaller pieces used in road repair and road building. This strenuous activity, a traditional occupation for poor women in Jamaica and elsewhere in Third World countries, is certainly much too hard for a person of her age and health condition, but it is all she can get. When her daughter arrives from the town, she has not even the time to sit and talk as she would like to: she has to go to work, while the daughter has to rush to catch the evening bus and get back to town before her time off is up. The play ends with the grandmother collapsing on her way to work. It is her daughter who finds her, and calls out to the children for help, hut in vain they are nowhere around!
Before showing the play, we had told the three women present that we had come to learn from them. One of them had reacted immediately, saying: "Me? Learn from me? Me, no know nutten, ma! A wha me a go teach anybody?" (I know nothing. What can I teach anyone?) After the presentation, the same woman was the first to speak: "Lord Jesus, a how conu know all dem-deh tings, ma? A how conu know me fe put me inna de play?" (How do you know all that? How did you know about me so that you could put me into the play?)
Recognizing a familiar situation, the women started recounting their own life experiences and concerns, with regard to the issues of migration, childcare, and women's work as raised in the play. Sistren assisted this process by asking questions aimed at clarifying details of the women's experiences and attitudes. The ladies were visibly enthused, and said that it was the first time they had been involved in anything that seemed to apply specifically to them. Thereafter, five other women joined the group. Sistren worked with them steadily over a few months during which the information gleaned from them was used to build a dramatic presentation on women's lives in the sugar belt.
This was a very important moment in the process of mobilizing and organizing a women's group in Sugartown. How did it happen?
The stories of the first women we met were examined by the collective and a decision was made as to which one of them had the greatest potential for exploring all the themes raised. Sistren chose the one of a woman who had to work on the sugar estate because her husband was not supporting the family properly, squandering what little money he ever got. She worked on traditional female tasks. (We discovered that there was a sexist division of labor on the estate, and that there were many ways through which women were discriminated against, in terms of wages, lack of job security, exclusion from the union structure, etc.) Eventually she was appointed supervisor but had to struggle to get equal pay with her male colleagues, despite the existing equal pay law. In the end, she lost the battle due to lack of female power on the estate and collusion between the trade union leadership and management. This story was chosen as holding the best potential for incorporating the majority of the themes discussed during the talks with the five women.
To ascertain whether these themes reflected the experiences of the broad spectrum of women in the area, another exploratory session was held at the community level. The five women were thus becoming the nucleus of a larger group.
At this workshop the participants came to the conclusion that their number one need was "organization." An informal group, including the original nucleus, was formed, becoming the reference point for the rest of the work. Other women workers were contacted; interviews were also held with the estate management, trade union leaders, etc. Out of all this the educative drama entitled The Case of Iris Armstrong was composed.
In the process of drafting this play, the research material was periodically brought back to the reference group in a dramatic form, not so much to describe a situation familiar to many of the participants, as to encourage analysis and reflection and get participants to decide what exactly had to be changed, and how.
Apart from composing the drama, Sistren also started the process of transferring it on a film. Once finalized, the two products were brought back into the hands if the community. For a number of reasons, the films was shown first.
It was on this occasion that the Sugartown Women's Organization was formally launched. The impact of having their own concerns dealt with in a medium as "alien" as a film was tremendous. It must be remembered that the majority of films shown in Jamaica come from the U.S., the United Kingdom and Japan and that it is rather unusual for ordinary Jamaicans to see people like themselves in a movie. After the show, some thirty women expressed interest in participating in the organization and their names were taken down. Some men also expressed interest in supporting the women's efforts, and their names were also taken.
At the next meeting the group reviewed the community issues raised the previous weeks. These were listed and participants were asked to isolate an issue which they felt could be acted upon with a good chance of success. The one chosen needed not be the most important one, but it had to be an important community concern, specifically relevant to women. Community issues that had arisen in the course of the work included: unemployment; price increases and rising cost-of-living; housing; water; childcare.
Of these issues, the first two were felt to be the most crucial. However, the participants did not think that they had enough power to effectively do anything about them. They chose instead to act around the water problem.
The community water supply depends on a pump which serves the various sections. This pump was in need of repair, and at the time when the action was proposed, large sections of the community had been entirely without water for three weeks.
Thus, the following two sessions were used as a process to underscore, through drama, the importance of the water problem, especially for women; find out the information necessary to act on (for example, who was responsible for the pump; why it was taking so long to be fixed; who controlled turning it on and off and what were the instructions they had; why it had not been turned on for three weeks; who were the authorities in the area to whom they could appeal, etc.); decide on a form of action, and prepare for it; set criteria for evaluation and follow-up.
The first session began with a warm up activity which involved using bodies to simulate a machine. The aim of the exercise was to stress cooperation how different actions and motions (skills and tasks) should be coordinated in order to produce meaningful results, and how this depends on the proper functioning of each part. At the end of the exercise one piece "collapses," and this leads to the collapse of the of the entire machine. The Sistren team first demonstrated by making sewing machines with their bodies (participants were not told what machine it was they had to guess); then it was the participants" turn who were at a loss to decide about what machine to simulate. Sistren suggested that they imitate the water pump. The idea was enthusiastically received, but the problem was that none of the women really knew how a pump worked. Luckily, there was one lone man in the workshop (the husband of one of the participants) who knew all about a pump and assisted the women in learning about it and imitating its functioning. This exercise led to a brief discussion on the different modes of integration of men and women in society, how they confined each group to specific areas of training, work experience, etc. It was decided to return to this theme in more detail at a later date.
This warm-up took participants to the main activity: to underscore the importance of the water problem and its crucial effects on women's life. Participants composed skits based on their everyday life experiences to show the kinds of situations that developed in their homes when water was not available. Apart from setting participants afire with a zeal for a solution, the skits provided a lot of humor and entertainment, while allowing for a discussion on the sexist division of labor in the home, its causes and implications.
After these skits the participants identified the information they needed in order to act. and what form of action they thought appropriate. They chose to send a delegation to the local Councillor who was rarely seen in the community ("except during election time""), but who nonetheless was responsible for seeking solutions to local problems through the Parish Council. In case the meeting with the Councillor proved unsuccessful, they would demonstrate before the office of the Parish Council in the main town. A delegation of four was chosen.
The next session was used to prepare the delegation for the meeting with the Councillor. This was done through role playing. Participants took turns in playing the part of the Councillor (whom they knew well). They imitated her mannerism, predicted her attitude to the delegation, and the arguments she was likely to use in response to their representations. One participant volunteered to play this particular role; the others had to pretend they were part of the delegation. They had to present their case and seek to get a commitment from the Councillor to do something about the situation. The person role-playing the Councillor had to respond in character. Wherever her responses or actions were judged out of character, any participant could replace her and "do it right." All participants collaborated in assessing what were the Councillors "true" and "false" characteristics. At the end. delegation members were asked to summarize key points and review counterarguments.
The visit to the Councillor resulted in the decision to send a water truck to the area, on definite days and at definite hours, twice per week. By the time an assessment meeting was held, the truck had made four visits on schedule. Participants were enthused; group attendance rose from 18 to 28: and new members signed up.
The delegation gave its report in drama form, acting out the details of the visit to the Councillor. Participants then commented on the skit, evaluating the delegation's performance and reflecting on the Councillor's attitudes and behavior.
These comments launched a discussion on the system of people's representation in the country on real democracy as people's action, on male chauvinism preventing women to be effectively represented in the system. It is relevant to point action had not been successful, the educational value of the exercise would have been retained. As it happened, participants felt so encouraged by this success that they were anxious to get onto the next stage of having the pump fixed, an objective in fact eventually achieved.
To return to the question of organization building, however, Sistren felt that now that the participants had tested their power of action, and had come to know each other's capabilities, strengths and weaknesses over the weeks of dealing with the water problem, the time had come for a more formal structure. A natural leadership had emerged, both around the water action and out of the organizational tasks associated with preparation of the educative drama. The matter was raised with participants who supported the suggestion enthusiastically, anxious to prove themselves even further. Alternative organizational structures were discussed. They rejected the idea of an "executive" with a "president," etc., in favor of a planning committee with specific tasks assigned to each of its members. Their experience had made them aware of their exact organizational needs, and of who among them would carry out the tasks best. They chose a name for their committee; decided on confining membership to women, though inviting men to participate in special events; established a set of rules, a system of dues, etc. (all of this on their own, without any prompting from Sistren).
Then, on Sistren's suggestion, the planning committee took on the preparation of the following session, the idea was to lead it to gradually replace Sistren's organizational role. This was not immediately successful. The first committee meeting ended with little achieved because no one was clear on how to tackle the task before them. At the next meeting, this was analyzed, and measures introduced to help solve the problem; for example, a convenor was appointed; it was decided to elect a chairperson; a format was developed for drawing up an agenda, for defining tasks and monitoring implementation. In spite of all this the following meeting did not take place out of lack of punctuality. In the course of it all, Sistren maintained a strong supportive role, filling the gap whenever the planning committee fell short. During this period of trial-and-error, the planning committee members gradually came to appreciate what elements were necessary for good organization and program implementation. They realized the difficulties of planning, the need to establish priorities, not to take on more than they could manage, to list and assign tasks, to monitor implementation.
The problems were gradually overcome, with the planning committee moving more and more toward an organizing role. By the end of the year, a "concert and social" event was entirely prepared and implemented by the group.
This is the stage the work is at now. Enthusiasm is high, and Sistren hopes to build the group even further in the coming year.
For more information about Sistren, write them at 20 Kensington Crescent, Kingston 5, Jamaica.