The 60 Years of Queer and Trans Activism and Care Project: Learning to Conduct Archival Research and Write Dramatic Verbatim Monologues
[ad_1]
1. Introduction
5. Learning How to Uncover Histories of QTBIPOC Activism and Care through Archival Research
To prepare students for their research projects, we provided them with a variety of readings and three different workshops: a workshop in conducting archival research, a workshop about centring themselves and their communities in their research, and a workshop in verbatim monologue writing. A reflection on what we learned from the readings and workshops follows. Both the readings and the workshops considerably enriched our understanding of how archival QTBIPOC research on activism and care might be designed and carried out.
5.1. Archival Research and Individualized Storytelling
Trans oral history is having a moment. In the wake of what Time [magazine] dubbed, in 2014, the “transgender tipping,” current interest in trans oral history is unfolding in the context of increased trans visibility and today’s sharp increase in violence against trans and gender nonconforming people, especially women of color. This new mainstream visibility of trans people in media and culture stems from a narrow vision of trans embodiment, a provisional acceptance that is predicated on a logic of medicalized identity, furthered by a style of narrative storytelling that individualizes and depoliticizes trans identity.
Rupert Raj used writing to support his fellow trans friends by disseminating valuable information through three established trans publications. The first, Gender Review: the FACTual Journal, ran from 1978 to 1981 in Calgary and Toronto. The subsequent journal, Metamorphosis, ran from 1982 to 1988 in Toronto. It was a bi-monthly newsletter for transgender men that promised information regarding clinical research, hormones, surgery, tips to effectively passing as male in public, and legal reform for trans people. The third, Gender NetWorker, published two issues in Toronto in 1988, directing trans individuals to helpful professionals and resource providers. Raj stated that he wanted to facilitate a communication network between professional and lay providers, to bring together trans people and the medical and health professionals who worked with trans populations. From his work, Raj provided critical support to and for other trans men, essentially serving as an information broker between the medical/psychological community and trans individuals and their loved ones. Rupert Raj’s advocacy was done through a method of care, which, in turn, fostered a community among trans Canadians.
In addition to his journal writing, Raj also answered personal letters from people looking for advice and support around gender transitioning. To answer their questions, Raj wrote to doctors and clinics in Europe, the United States, Singapore, and Brazil. He then shared the information he received with fellow activists, friends, as well as people who wrote requesting information. The detailed information Raj requested from doctors and clinics included the success rate of procedures, patient satisfaction, cost, and available medical insurance coverage.
In January 1985, both Liebman’s sister and mother wrote to Raj to tell him of David’s suicide. David’s sister said she was grateful for Raj’s help. David’s mother thanked Raj for reaching out to David. She said Raj’s friendship meant a great deal to him. Three of Raj’s friends additionally reached out to Raj to mourn Liebman. For Mia, the letters to Raj from David Liebman and his family and friends demonstrate the importance of care and community amongst trans people in the 1980s. The care and community received from Raj challenged the isolation David experienced.
In reflecting on Mia’s monologue entitled “Your Brother, David” (which was how David signed his letters to Raj), we note that the monologue is a community story that resists the typical tropes of individual storytelling. So often, we want to tell stories with happy endings. This story does not have a happy ending. While David was connected to the community and experienced some hope through his letter writing to Raj, in the end, he did not survive.
Verbatim theatre can resist individualized storytelling by resisting the structure of what is often thought of as a well-made play with a beginning, middle, and end. It resists the structure of a premise, inciting incident, climax, and denouement. Verbatim work comes into the middle of messy lives and does not tell a story that neatly resolves conflicts.
5.2. Working with Indigenous Archival Material
Knowing that some of our students might be interested in working with Indigenous archival material, we asked archivist Raegan Swanson to lead a second workshop about how students might use the Indigenous archival material they found in The ArQuives. Swanson has worked as an archivist at the Library and Archives Canada, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada, and the Aanischaaukamikw Cree Cultural Institute. They have also worked as the Archival Advisor for the Council of Archives New Brunswick and are currently working on a doctoral thesis that focuses on the creation of community archives in Indigenous communities. To prepare for Raegan’s workshop, the students read the following two important documents.
Understanding how these two documents came into being and how they are relevant to our students’ archival research work requires an understanding of some Canadian history. In June 2015, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada issued 94 Calls to Action to the Canadian government and its citizens in the hope that the wrongs that had been done and continue to be done to the Indigenous Peoples of Canada would be addressed. Call to Action #70 specifically called upon the Canadian Association of Archivists to undertake, in collaboration with Indigenous Peoples, a national review of archival policies and practices to (1) ensure that the truth of what happened in residential schools was uncovered and (2) provide recommendations for how the truth might be uncovered.
With a small grant from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, the Steering Committee spent the next five years engaged in extensive research to better understand how archival practices have continued to perpetuate colonial ideas and restrict access to information in archives across the country. Relegating the small amount of funding they received to pay for a report writer, editor, and designer, the Steering Committee spent their lunch hours and hours after work conducting research and compiling the report. The findings of their research are included in the first report Raegan asked us to read, Response to the Report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission Taskforce. The Steering Committee’s recommendations for action are included in the second report: Reconciliation Framework: The Response to the Report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission Taskforce.
In her talk with the students, Swanson discussed the framework as a road map that sets out a vision, a set of foundational principles, and a path forward for the Archives profession in Canada. The broad objectives point to areas of archival practice that immediately need change, and the action-oriented strategies describe the kind of practices that support respectful relationship-building initiatives, embrace the intellectual sovereignty of First Nations, Inuit, and Métis peoples over records created by or about them, and encourage the reconceptualization of mainstream archival theory and practice.
The students spent a good deal of our time with Swanson discussing the first objective articulated in the framework: Creating relationships of respect, relevance, reciprocity, and responsibility when engaging with Indigenous archival research materials and Indigenous communities wanting access to archival research materials. Addressing the students as researchers who were about to begin a new archival research project, Raegan posed a set of questions students needed to ask themselves before they started their research.
- 3.
-
How am I coming into my research work? How do I fit in? For example, if I am a non-Indigenous researcher doing research with or about Indigenous people, why am I doing this work? Have I been invited to do this work by an Indigenous community? If not, have I created a relationship with the Indigenous people I want to work with to ensure I have their support to take on this research?
- 4.
-
What is the relevance of my research work? Is my research work relevant to the Indigenous people/community I want to work with? How? To whom in particular?
- 5.
-
What responsibility do I need to take in my research work? How do I respect the people I’m working with? (Swanson 2022).
While people should be approaching relationships with any community with respect, it needed to be written, it needed to be said, because so many people are so unfamiliar about working with communities outside their own sphere. This is especially true for university researchers. We see a lot of people parachuting in, doing their research, and parachuting out again. If we’re talking about what our role is and creating these relationships, we need to think about the coming in and leaving.
In our discussion about the framework, student Chika Duru told us that the statement about researchers having access to archives and knowledge really stood out to her. “At university,” she said, “students have access to many archives. Having this access means showing respect for the materials we have access to and access knowledge we are gaining.” Other students agreed, acknowledging that a researcher’s access to knowledge is a gift, not an entitlement.
7. Learning to Write Dramatic Verbatim Monologues
8. Conclusions
To conclude our reflection on what we learned from our 60 Years of QTBIPOC Activism and Care project, we want to describe the ways our students have begun to share their work. We also want to share some of the challenges we faced during the course and our students’ take-aways from the course.
Three students, Chika, Shakira, and Julia Chapman, presented their monologues at the Festival of Original Theatre (FOOT) at the University of Toronto in February 2023. Four students, Julia, Giovanna El-Warrak, Anya Shen, and Vivian Wang, presented a poster of all the students’ research projects at the University of Toronto’s Research Opportunity Program Research Fair in March 2023. The poster presented at the Research Fair is also available on the Gailey Road website. Mitzi, Anya, and Vivian presented their monologues at Congress, the annual national conference of Social Science and Humanities research in Canada, in May 2023.
Turning now to some of the challenges we experienced in the course, two seem particularly important. The first involved questions of language and legitimacy. How does one define “activist”? Who counts? Does a person have to identify personally as an activist, or can a researcher bestow that title on someone else? Does a person have to have a lifetime of activism, or is a single moment of public work enough? Does activism have to be public facing? We encountered this struggle with terms and categories throughout our work, not only with “activist” and “activism” but also “care”, “history”, “community”, and “justice.” Each of these terms is broad and can incorporate many differing examples. Our team often found ourselves discussing these questions and how different answers might influence our work.
The second challenge we faced will be familiar to anyone who works within research-based theatre research, verbatim theatre specifically, and that is the question of ethical representation. Specifically, when someone takes on the role of “playwright” and begins to craft and edit words into a speech assigned to a living person, where are the lines of appropriation, misappropriation, and misrepresentation? There are no hard and fast rules in verbatim theatre and often no ethics board to guide a theatrical research project. Working with the readings and discussions discussed above, we became an ethics community for one another. Each person on the team brought their thinking, their choices, and their concerns to our classes, and we pushed each other to look at our editing and citation practices with a critical eye. We questioned together what the possible harms and benefits were connected to each students’ monologue project.
To encourage this process during the team’s work with the verbatim monologue “Putting Lipstick on a Pig” described earlier, Jenny showed the students the original interview, the transcript, and the resulting monologue. We discussed the choices and practices that the Out at School team made, the moments of erasure, the moments of clarity, and how a monologue can both capture and miss original source material. This conversation helped the students, most of whom were writing verbatim monologues for the first time, to shift their effort from striving for “correct” or “perfect” to “strong”, “clear”, and “persuasive.” However, the challenge of getting it right, of serving our interview subjects with respect and care continues to be the most important challenge and commitment in creating verbatim theatre.
On the last day of the course, we asked our students what they were taking away from the work we had done together. Shakira said that she’s taking away the idea that she can research things she feels passionate about. She also said our work to uncover histories of activism and care and share them through verbatim theatre will inform her future scholarship in political science. Mitzi told us that she had a great time and that she felt proud of how her project had developed since the beginning of the course. Like Shakira, Mitzi said what she learned about conducting research from Elspeth, Raegan, and d’bi will impact her research in other courses. “The course changed my life”, she told us. For Giovanna, finding freedom to express herself in forms other than writing essays was also life-changing.
Vivian told us she appreciated learning how to approach research in ethical ways. She also appreciated the solidarity that had developed among the students in the course. Anya learned how treating people with love and care is a form of radical power which can be integrated into academia. Mia also talked about learning how the practice of care was important not only to the activists we researched but to their communities as well.
Like Shakira, Julia said she now feels empowered to pursue research she deeply cares about. For Jialu Lulu Li, learning how to support herself and others in completing a research project was very important. She now feels confident about applying to graduate school. Like Lulu, Chika also mentioned the pleasure of working on a project as part of a research community. Research, she noted, does not have to be a solitary practice.
While the small number of students involved in the course makes it impossible to draw general conclusions about the success or possibilities of the course and archival verbatim research, we believe the project can be replicated by other researchers and practitioners. In particular, the idea that research does not have to be a solitary practice, that it can be taken up in community, within relationships that are respectful, and through commitments of relevance, reciprocity, and responsibility are ideas we believe are worthy of being shared with undergraduate students. They are ideas that will continue to ground our own future research practices and ideas, which we hope will continue to ground the research our students will engage in over their careers.
[ad_2]