Adaptation of the Forum-theatre model to do legislative theatre

This depends on the forum-theatre model that one is actually working with. My model ist very much inspired by David Diamond’s Theatre for Living forumtheatre-model. There is no clear oppressor and no oppressed, there is no protagonist and noc antagonist (or better said: all are protagonists) Of course there is oppression, of course there is conflict and struggle and injustice. All characters can be replaced. Not to turn them into nice people by magic but to honestly discover their struggles and how they could become part of improvement of the situation. In my case calling or labeling the people with disabilities as “oppressed” would have been an act of oppression itself (in my opinion). And calling the doctors, the care givers, the politicians “oppressors” would have been to norrow minded.
I think that the forum-theatre model has to adapted always! To the circumstances, the group, the qustion, the joker, the times (as they ar a-changing…) But it is also clear to me that some things have to remain in order to do forum theatre. It’s Theatre, it’s an honest question I don’t have simple answers for, it’s an honest an true dialogue.
In this case we were looking for aspects that are relevant for the law. So we were looking for “areas” (spaces) where the law becomes visible. So we started with sites, like doctors, offices, care homes, work places…

The role of the Joker and what is asked to the audience during legislative-theatre sessions

I didn’t ask for legislative proposals. None of the people in the audience studied law. It would have been presumptious. But we asked for desired change to be shown in the interventions.

This project exemplifies how participatory methods, such as the Theatre of the Oppressed, can be leveraged to address systemic issues and create impactful, inclusive legislation.

Integration of legislative theater to co-create a law

A new legislation about disability and rights

Following the project, we organized a festival performance. That festival has continued to thrive and remains active today. Every second year in Tirol, we host a theatre festival that includes diverse groups: people with disabilities, refugees, elderly participants, and other marginalized communities. It’s an inclusive celebration of theatre and diversity.

In other projects, such as a recent initiative on climate change, we invited politicians to participate, and while they engaged with the performances and discussions, the outcomes did not influence policy decisions. There was no formal commitment from politicians to integrate the results into their policymaking. Ensuring the sustainability of the methodology itself and expanding its use to other policy areas remain important goals for the future.

The absence of a “metabolic cell”. Instead, we opted for meetings where ideas from the stage were presented directly to decision-makers and lawyers within the bureaucracy and establishment.

The flow of communication between society and decision-making bodies. In Boal’s work, there seemed to be a more circular process: when decisions or debates occurred in parliament, the information was brought back to the public through tools like forum theatre or invisible theatre. This created a feedback loop between society and power, fostering continuous interaction.
In our project, this circularity was not evident. After the law was passed, information dissemination followed a more conventional path.

I understand that adaptations are necessary to fit the cultural and structural context of each project. As you noted, it’s not about replicating Boal’s methods exactly but rather taking inspiration from them and tailoring them to the circumstances. However, reflecting on these differences can provide valuable insights.

Need to embed the method of legislative theater more deeply into governmental and administrative structures to ensure that its outcomes lead to tangible legislative or policy changes.