ABSTRACT

A theater could not present a production that was supposed to emerge from alternative politics and not be conscious of it as a product of a specific way of thinking and acting. Theaters were cast as microcosms of society that did and could play out the individual’s relation to society both actual, as in mainstream and conventional theaters, and potential, as in alternative and political theaters. Feminist theaters saw their tasks very clearly; in order to work toward an end of the oppression of women they had to create organizations that would empower women both in the process of creation and in the product of performance. Exploration of ideas through the collective was the most significant manifestation of the attempt to reconcile politics with structure. Feminist theaters were not

the only groups struggling with the idea of the collective; the San Francisco Mime Troupe had wrestled with the desire to reorganize as a collective, and the issue split the group. Those kinds of struggles and commitments were hallmarks of alternative theaters in the 1960s. The collective model’s potential resonated for all feminist theaters, and each woman believed herself accountable to notions of collectivity and these notions were often a part of every facet of the theaters’ operations. There were vestiges of collective organization everywhere, even in groups that rejected the model outright; each theater articulated some kind of relationship to collectivity. Collective organization within the theater groups tried closely to imitate the egalitarian community ideals of the feminist movement. Every area of the groups’ functioning was subjected to a collective standard and scrutiny: the creation of texts, the selection of members, the interactions with the audience and with other theater groups, and the day to day operations of the theater. This chapter will interrogate notions of collectivity as they were shaped by the participants’ understanding of their activities, as they brought theater groups together to collaborate and interact, and as the notions functioned when the theaters grappled with the differences of race, class, and sexuality. Finally there is an in-depth examination of the stories of four specific feminist theaters: the Women’s Experimental Theater, Spiderwoman Theater, Lilith Theater, and Front Room Theater Guild. These narratives are not intended to be read as perfect representatives of all feminist theaters; certain elements are repeated in the histories of many theater groups, but they also offer narratives not easily available elsewhere as a reference and basis for comparison. By discussing ideas of collectivity, interactions among theaters, and the issue of difference as it is played out in class, race, and sexuality as the most important and explicit issues in feminist theater, it is possible to examine the congruence not simply of theory and practice but of the theory proposed for practice and the theory that can be extrapolated from practice.