5.1 Findings on form
5.1.3 Facilitation and post-performance discussions
When the facilitator asked the audience to comment on the first performance of the play, I observed that the audience was initially hesitant. The facilitator then asked leading questions such as: Did you as a woman, a man or young adult feel that Scene X was talking to you? As a Mosotho residing in Malealea, do you think that the portrayal of events in Scene X was accurate? How did you feel about Scene X? What do you think
needs to be done? Do you think that silence is a good thing? After the facilitator asked leading questions, people began to dialogue. The reason why they did not talk initially was not because they had nothing to say, it was because they are not used to speaking up.
When asked what they liked most about the play, some interviewees stated that they liked the post-performance discussions. They said they liked the discussions because:
They gave us a chance to talk about the issues that we are faced with here in Malealea.
The play was good but I think it could have been better if it included issues such as the rights of the child because nowadays you cannot even talk to your child or show her/him the right path. In our culture it is known that when your child misbehaves you show her /him the right path by spanking her but nowadays these children tell you that they have rights. (Post-performance discussions, 6th July 2006).
Other interviewees stated that issues such as alcohol, transport and chicken theft should have been dealt with in the play:
I hear that HIV/AIDS is a very big problem in the country, and a lot of people are doing a lot of things to fight its spread which is a very good thing. My only concern is that our chickens are disappearing, people are stealing them, the culprits are known yet no one is doing anything about it. (In-depth interview, 7th July 2006)
During the post-performance discussions one elderly man stated:
I like this play very much, the part that I like is when you my mother asked me whether this play has talked to me and what is it that can be done here in Malealea to solve the problems that are here. (Post-performance discussion, 6th July 2007)
From the above responses it can be seen that facilitation gave them a feeling of recognition, that they were not just there to listen to what the ‘experts’ were saying, but that they were an important ingredient in the play. The play is made for them and if there are challenges that they deal with on a daily basis that are not reflected in the play, it is
important that those issues be put out in the open so that they can be addressed. The facilitator’s duty was to explain to them that the play is merely something that they could use to reflect on their lives, to see what is important and what it is that they want to change. Through facilitation the audience thus realised that they are what is important in the play.
However other people did not like the post-performance discussions. For example, when the facilitator invited people to discuss issues presented in the play, other people, especially the older boys, left laughing and running. When asked where they were going they shouted that they were going to herd the cattle as they had left them to watch the show; others, meanwhile, shouted that they did not want to be asked questions.
A middle-aged woman whispered to another saying:
She should not come to us and ask us to speak. (Post-performance discussion, 6th July 2006)
The above observation indicates that some people were not yet ready to speak out, mainly because they did not want to be put on the spot in case they said something wrong.
The objective of the project was to break the silence and begin dialogue, because as people began to dialogue on issues posed by the play, different solutions would then be explored. Through the discussions, comments and suggestions led by the facilitator, the play became a way in which possible paths may be examined as stated by Lambert6. If there had been no facilitation, the audience would have identified with characters and seen the characters’ journey as nothing more than natural and unalterable. This was reflected in the group interview (6th July 2006) and in one of the interviews with a middle-aged woman who said:
You know my child, we see young girls who are in relationships with older men just so
6 See page 39
they could get money and also men who cheat and beat their wives. But because these things happen so often we have come to see them as natural things that happen and that if they don’t happen to you or your daughter you are lucky. But when you look them in a play and people talk about them then you actually see how disgusting they are and you also realise that they can be changed.
From the above responses it can be concluded that most people liked the facilitation because it provided them with a platform to actually stand up and talk. Although the issues raised were occasionally outside the scope of the project, it nevertheless gave them a chance to air their views and be heard. The play provided them with a space to talk about issues that were really bothering them, whether it was chicken theft or children’s rights, what is important is that people did dialogue.
The facilitation also helped in focusing the audience’s response, as well as encouraging them to take part in the discussions by asking leading questions. During the post- performance discussions an elderly woman started talking about how the lodge had betrayed them and because of that she was now wearing torn shoes. Apart from her, though, there were few people who talked about issues outside the scope of the project but the facilitator always managed to tie those to the bigger issue of silence, which was the main theme, through problem-posing.
From the above findings it can be seen that in order for the audience to engage in dialogue, the facilitator as a catalyst communicator (White and Nair, 1999) needs to create an enabling environment. The findings have also substantiated the point made by White and Nair (1999) that in order for the facilitation to be effective, the facilitator needs to have appropriate skills. In the end it is the audience, with the assistance of the facilitator, that transforms the way that people look at themselves, feel about themselves and relate amongst themselves. Therefore as argued by Welch in page 39 the success of PPT depends on an effective facilitator and not everyone can be a facilitator. This was evidenced when a workshop was facilitated by an inexperienced student. The session failed terribly as people did not participate and in the end the facilitator was the one who was telling people what to do, much to the confusion of the villagers who were not sure
what was happening.