Wednesday 3rd May, 2023
I’m having a party, & you’re not invited…
There are no girls allowed in this clubhouse…
The only thing I love is beauty…
Are you noticing a trend across these sentences?
‘They say’ that the number 3 implies a pattern, & this one is a fascinating one to me: EXCLUSION.
I first came across this idea of ‘dramatic exclusion’ on a political poster splayed across Dublin. It was inviting everyone to attend an event… everyone, EXCEPT racists. When you exclude a group of people like racists, not only does it make me more likely to check you out, but it says something very clear about what you are. The simplest technique for defining yourself, your event, or your cause… is to define it in opposition to something else. Don’t like war? Try pacifism. Don’t like ‘those people’? Try xenophobia… (or maybe just reach out to ‘those people’ & have a normal conversation, or a coffee or somethin…)
So why is dramatic exclusion such a powerful shortcut in communication? When you reject something, it becomes really hard to, if not impossible to return to a neutral stance. There’s a degree of commitment in rejection. That commitment is a risk & people love risk… cause it could go wrong! Now, it’s easy to reject racists… they aren’t a particularly popular bunch. (or at least weren’t at the time of writing…) But what if you were to reject the mainstream? What if you were to reject cisgendered, straight, white, wealthy men? Suddenly the risk of your opinion is greater, now, you’re not only rejecting a sizeable portion of the people in positions of power & influence, but you’re potentially alienating those who feel “attacked” by your “political views”.
(I’m using these quotation marks to imply a lack of truth in the idea that you would be attacking anyone with your rejection, or that your rejection is inherently political… your event might reject cis, straight, white guys because they seem to be the most likely to cause problems at events.)
Taking these stances can be quite tough for artists of all kinds. Sure, you galvanise your niche, but you also open yourself up to the backlash, & potentially put a limit on your career. I loved SOPHIE, but she was never gonna stand next to Simon Cowell & present the Grammys… ya know what I mean?
How then, can we use dramatic exclusion to our own, nefarious means?
When I was figuring out a theme to the last headline show, I thought about who I am, & what I believe in. I’m an ignorant optimist… a believer. I ‘feel’ like everything’s gonna be alright. So what’s the simplest thing for me to reject? Pessimism of course! To do this, I added an optimist & pessimist ticket option. The only difference being the price of each ticket. (optimist’s were cheaper) This gave people a clear message about who I am, & what I believe at multiple stages. Not only in the title of the show, or the shows description, but down to the level of ticket pricing, etc… When you have a ‘stance’ you can then find new ways of communicating it to your audience. On the night of the show I quoted Emily Dickinson & was able to use the ticket price to explain a way of thinking proposed by Rutger Bregman… etc…
What effect does this actually have though?
I’m not entirely sure how effective my endeavour was, to be honest. I guess some people know that I’m an optimist now… The hope & theory is that they might relate to me more, or identify me with their own optimism, etc… Going forward I’ll probably find more was of creating that association & that could build on the foundation of this gig. It takes a lot of association, over multiple instances, to forge an identity. Remember? “3 implies a pattern.” So we’ll need at least three moments of association, I reckon.
The ‘end goal’ of this ‘dramatic exclusion’ is a more committed fan base. You’re gonna create a backlash to what you do… you’re gonna create some ‘haters’, but I’d argue that the hate is a sign of something effective. If what you do moves people to reach out & attack you, then it will move someone to reach out & hold your hand.
For me, this means more commitment to an idea, to reject something. What that is, I’m still unsure. I could walk the path of optimism, which would make a lot of sense… it falls in line with my sincerity, & earnest attitude. I’m not ‘cool’ & I’m not ‘aloof’. I’m like a golden retriever, licking everything that comes my way. There is another idea that I’m looking to champion though… & that’s the idea of ‘touch’. Personally, I think the world would be a much sweeter & safer place if we all learned about safe & platonic touch from an early age. In the circus world it’s a big aspect of learning, a lot of the dance & theatre world are the same. Circus artists, Dancers, & Actors, usually have a very comfortable relationship to touch… when you’re holding someone on your shoulders, it’d make sense that you need to be comfortable with someones feet next to your face. A philosophy of touch would reject isolation I guess… it’s a little unclear who I’d be ‘pissing off’ if I championed touch… but I guess we’ll find out.
I should leave it there though, cause I could talk about dramatic exclusion for forever… & we don’t have forever.
Until next week m’dear,
Nathan
