Madness in the Making: Psychosocial Disability and Theater By Scott Matthew Wallin A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Performance Studies in the Graduate Division of the University of California, Berkeley Committee in charge: Professor Catherine Cole, Chair Professor Shannon Jackson Professor Susan Schweik Spring 2014 Scott Matthew Wallin Madness in the Making: Psychosocial Disability and Theater Copyright 2014 Abstract Madness in the Making: Psychosocial Disability and Theater by Scott Matthew Wallin Doctor of Philosophy in Performance Studies University of California, Berkeley Professor Catherine Cole, Chair This dissertation begins at the promising crossroads of performance studies and disability studies. How does theater influence our perceptions and responses to psychosocial disability? While plays and productions often reinforce dominant social views that stigmatize and oppress people who are considered mad or labeled mentally ill, theater attuned to these concerns can also critique such treatment by offering fuller, more complex depictions that encourage us to rethink psychosocial disabilities. This dissertation analyzes North American theatrical productions that engage with madness in atypical ways. Drawing from performance theory, disability theory, and ethnographic inquiry via audience and artist interviews and close readings of live and video- recorded performances, “Madness in the Making” analyzes moments where theater and psychosocial disability work together to disrupt normative practices, initiate productive discussions around psychosocial disability, and reach towards a more inclusive and innovative theater. Contemporary society tends to regard psychosocial disability as mental illness that should be eliminated through treatment or social isolation. But madness is also a valuable resource for theater. Peter Brook and the Royal Shakespeare Company’s production of Peter Weiss’ Marat/Sade (1965), for example, used madness as a theatrical device to push the limits of acting and audience expectations. This production exemplified how theater strategically uses mental and emotional disabilities in various productive ways, albeit often without concern for the lived realities of disabled people and in ways that further stereotypes and misunderstanding. Other theater, however, specifically targets these concerns. The Broadway musical, Next to Normal (2010) and Tuesdays at Four (2004) produced by The Fisher Players, a small community theater group from Detroit, consciously attempted to reduce the stigma of mental illness. Mental health advocates praised these shows for educating audiences and empowering mental health consumers. One can see in these performances theater’s capacity to engender audience empathy and support. However, a deeper analysis of the work also reveals drama’s inherent limitations in representing psychosocial disability. Part of this limitation relates to the need for an intersectional understanding of oppression as well the fact that stigma can never be fully removed from the concept of mental illness. Another challenge lies in the complex relationship between language and disability, and Joshua Waters’ Madhouse Rhythm (2008) is a one-person show that addresses this challenge by utilizing linguistic performativity to resist psychiatric 1 discourse. The production also reveals how subversive reinscription and subjunctive space can complicate the boundaries between mental illness and sanity and promote a sense of support and community around psychosocial disability. Lastly, in response to dramatic theater’s inherent limitations in critically engaging with psychosocial disability, this project explores how The Wooster Group’s Rumstick Road (1977) exemplifies ways that postdramatic theater can critique psychiatric subjection and function as a hermeneutic device for better understanding and embracing psychological and emotional difference. While disability studies has moved beyond fundamental issues of access and support to analyze how disability operates as a culture, a minority identity, and a resource for all critical and cultural theory, this exploration has not yet adequately included the concerns and unique contributions of psychosocial disability. The cost of this neglect runs high. People with psychosocial disabilities remain not only underrepresented, their voices are effectively silenced by authoritative discourse that speaks for them and often misrepresents their experiences and perspectives. This dissertation addresses this gap by building upon disability studies’ initial engagement with mad studies. Using moments of performance to exemplify psychosocial disability’s specific perspectives, concerns, and strengths, this work reevaluates the way that disability studies requires and valorizes the functional, normative mind as a way to understand and advocate for those with physical disabilities. By critically embracing psychosocial disability, disability studies may need to revise many of its assumptions and practices. The various performance sites in this dissertation demonstrate ways that psychosocial disability works not only as an object of representation but also an aesthetic and critical tool in theater. Critical disability aesthetics draw attention to the limitations of conventional theater. By deconstructing an ideology of ability and hermeneutic mastery that pervades theater practice, psychosocial disability can engender a more inclusive and critical process for audiences, practitioners, and theorists. 2 Table of Contents Acknowledgments ii Introduction iii 1. Theoretical Contexts: Madness as Disability and Performance 1 2. A Productive Madness: Metonym, Metaphor, and Theatrical Prosthesis 28 3. Combating the Stigma of Mental Illness: Dramatic Interventions 64 4. Fighting Fire with Fire: Resisting Psychiatric Discourse On Stage 102 5. Postdramatic Theater and Critical Disability Aesthetics 132 Epilogue 167 Bibliography 172 i Acknowledgments I wish to acknowledge Catherine Cole, Susan Schweik, and Shannon Jackson for their guidance through every step of this project. I also thank the many local artists, scholars and activists, including Neil Marcus, Petra Kuppers, Georgina Kleege, and fellow members of The Icarus Project, who provided much encouragement and wisdom. I am particularly grateful to Joshua Walters, Frank Matzke and hArt Times Theater, and all of the other wonderful artists and audience members who participated in the analyzed productions and were willing to share their time, thoughts, and personal feelings about the work. Additionally, I wish to acknowledge Sima Belmar for her generous feedback on much of my early writing. And I thank the rest of my colleagues and students in University of California, Berkeley’s Department of Theater, Dance, and Performance Studies for their rich engagement with me during my time here. Most of all, I wish to express my deep gratitude to Adrienne Leacock and my parents for their love and ongoing support. ii Introduction How does theater influence our perceptions and responses to psychosocial disability? While plays and productions often reinforce dominant social views that stigmatize and oppress people who are considered mad or labeled mentally ill, theater attuned to these concerns can also critique such treatment by offering fuller, more complex depictions that encourage us to rethink psychosocial disabilities. This dissertation analyzes North American theatrical productions that engage with madness in atypical ways. Drawing from performance theory, disability theory, and ethnographic inquiry via audience and artist interviews and close readings of live and video- recorded performances, “Madness in the Making” analyzes moments where theater and psychosocial disability work together to disrupt normative practices, initiate productive discussions around psychosocial disability, and reach towards a more inclusive and innovative theater. This project begins at the promising crossroads of performance studies and disability studies. Disability studies rejects the notion of disability as a natural, discrete condition that befalls upon unfortunate individuals.1 Instead, it considers the social processes that reflect and shape how people—our bodies, minds, and emotions—interact with environments and one another. Performance studies also considers performance as a transitive action, a subject that exists in the act of doing something. These acts can reflect, shape, and even inaugurate aspects of ourselves and our world. At the nexus of these two interdisciplinary fields, performance studies analyzes how disability functions as trope, image, physical object, and action deployed throughout performances of everyday life and aesthetic practices, including theater. In doing so, it can explain how disability and its representations inextricably shape our beliefs, societal values, behavior, and ways of understanding the world. As Carrie Sandahl and Phillip Auslander argue in their foundational text at the convergence of performance studies and disability studies, disability is “something one does rather than something one is.”2 The inverse of this critical work also holds true: disability studies analyzes how performance functions. No longer a sub- category of humanity or a subject or theme to be treated in isolation, disability intervenes politically, socially, aesthetically, and theoretically on all aspects of life, including performance. Therefore, as we use a critical understanding