Week 2 Discussion: Immersive Tourism and Creative Drama

In reading Magelssen's acount of "Caminata Noctura," the underground railroad simulation, and other immersive tourism projects, my mind was immediately drawn to the work being done with elementary and middle school students in the creative drama classroom. To quickly summarize, creative drama is a non-performative, process-based way of teaching and learning drama, and is basically a smaller-scale, educationally-focused version of the tourist attractions Magelssen describes.

For example, I observed a 4th grade class last year that was playing out a drama of immigration to the United States in the 19th century, and the students all got down on their bellies and sneaked under fences and into corners, and huddled up in hiding spaces on an imaginary boat, holding hands and shivering for fear of the guard (played by their drama teacher), who was on the lookout for fugitives. While all this plays out in a standard classroom, with mostly imaginary props etc., the reality of it for students can be as intense as the reality Magelssen describes in his first experience with the underground railroad simulation.

In a speech he gave at the 2009 Conference of the American Alliance for Theatre and Education, Harvard Professor Howard Gardner pointed to research that showed that middle school students who took drama classes improved on tests of empathy between 6th and 8th grade, while students' scores during these years, on average, decreased. I think this research can, in a sense, be considered in terms of the immersion tourism industry, and that we can assume that simulations of poverty and hardship also do good for a person's sense of empathy.

But I also think that many of us (especially those of us that were weirded out by the idea of the Caminata Nocturna) would instinctively feel that there's a difference between simulating hardship with a group of fourth graders as an educational exercise and doing the same thing with a group of paying adult vacationers as a tourist attraction.

So my questions, then, are:

1. How do the demographics (race, age, class, nationality, etc.) of the participatory audience of an immersive performance piece like the Caminata Nocturna affect the meaning and effect of the piece?

2. Do the intention and purpose of this kind of work change its meaning and effect?

3. Do we feel like the potential for projects like the Caminata Nocturna to raise empathy for oppressed people is enough to override the uneasiness some of us feel (see Tracey and Amanda's posts, especially) about the authenticity (or lack of authenticity) of the experience of the participatory audience?

Week Two discussion

The Caminata Nocturna article reminded me of the old adage, "before you judge a man, walk a mile in his shoes." Well, the tourists who frequent the attraction get to walk five miles in the shoes of an illegal immigrant crossing into the United States. However, like several of you have pointed out, this form of entertainment has elicited less than enthusiastic reactions. Taken straight from the article: "It has been interpreted badly by some," says Mr. Martin. "It is misunderstood. This is so my neighbors prosper, so that no one else is forced to go."

This is a familiar argument to me. I live in New Mexico, so Native American gaming rights, for example, is often debated and defended in a similar fashion (not to mention immigration is a hot-button issue in itself there). After all, it's supposed to be entertainment, right? Paying customers willingly choose to go to these events, and many kindle their social consciences; entertainment and cultural insights aren't mutually exclusive.

In terms of performative space, Caminata Nocturna offers a unique experience. There are actors who portray characters (border agents, the 'pollero'), yet the audience is actively involved; nobody is sitting comfortably in a theater passively watching the show. Such direct involvement demands attention and discourse that will ultimately contribute to a growing body of knowledge on what illegal immigration means to the participants. By literally immersing the audience in the spectacle, entertainment such as this raises several issues: Given that the owner admitted that his desire is to discourage others from illegally immigrating, can a production such as this be unbiased? Does active audience participation catalyze stronger reactions than passive audience participation?

Discussion Questions (week 2)

I was taken aback by the Christian Science monitor. Throughout the piece, I had to pause and take a second to reflect on what I was reading, simply because I genuinely could not believe this. I was initially shocked to know that this type of tourism exists--that people would voluntarily participate in this type of event. Then I stopped to think, how is this any different than the strange tourist events that Americans choose to participate in? Further reflecting, I realized I couldn't think of a single tourist attraction off the top of my head that I found as strange, jarring, and real as the Caminata. The hike truly takes it one step further (at least in my realm of knowledge). And so I pose the question, is this something that anyone in this class would choose to participate in, if given the chance?

Right now, I feel as though I can confidently say that I would not want to pay to take part in such an event. I think the hike could even be deemed hazardous, as it probably has the ability to trigger feelings of trauma in people that they are not used to feeling. All in all, I came away with a sour taste in my mouth. Though I understand that the people who began the Caminata believe it to be a historical and informative experience--noble motivations--I do not think the average American would react enthusiastically to the hike. Perhaps I'm just not a risk-taker, but I know that I am not the type of person who would enjoy such an experience, and I'm excited to hear if others would choose to pay for this "tourist attraction."

Magelssen + Created Realities

Discussion Question: The pieces that were most intriguing to me this week were the Magelssen essay and the Christian Science Monitor article both describing the experience of Caminata park in Mexico. The question that arose for me was after reading the following excerpt from Magelssen's piece describing the act of this new kind of adventure tourism- How is this different, after all, from the entitled Western demand...for a "glocal" sensory experience that offers escape from "mediocrity and kitsch of mass tourism?" As a student who just traveled for the past 3 and a half months I saw many attempts to discover the "real" experience of a place. But in some instances attempting to "discover" the reality of a place just cheapens the experience. Instead of enjoying the culture and accepting the circumstances you are placed in, people are obsessed with going beyond "tourism" in some elitist attempt to rise above the stereotypes of ignorant tourism. While the aims of such travel are obviously admirable, in my experience, sometimes its more stereotypical to attempt to create a "reality" of a certain place. As with these people impersonating runaway slaves or attempted immigrants- they are attempting to create a real situation but this is impossible. They are not these people. They are not facing these hardships. They are just acting and pretending. Does this not demean the actually experience had by these peoples by making it all into some sort of bizarre game? Some attempt to recreate a reality that is impossible to replicate?

Week 2 Questions

The Caminata article raised some very important issues for me in light of performance and social issues. There is definitely a distinction to be made between these kinds of simulations that deal with historical events such as the slavery experience and the Holocaust museum and those that seek to recreate current affairs like the border crossing. As the former type of attraction is constructed by those who do not have first-hand experience, it would seem to be less authentic. After all, the Caminata is orchestrated by people who have crossed the border several times themselves. Yet, perhaps there is more room for comparisons to be made and those critiques are likely to be more heated when dealing with such a relevant hot-button topic.  I think the most difficult thing to gauge is the intangible reactions and processing that inevitably occurs within the individuals who undergo the experience at Caminata. What does their experience teach them about the preconceived ideas they may have had? What do they learn about themselves and what they were brought up to believe? How can such ethereal responses be measured and ought they be given consideration as we judge the worth or "success" of this type of tourist attraction?

Week 2 Discussion

At the risk of focusing on a current event that may be only tangentially related to the issues at hand, I could think of almost nothing but the WikiLeaks scandal while reading the Digital Zapatistas article. Julian Assange and EDT seem remarkably in line with each other as far as their political philosophy goes. Lane says, "The transparency of [Floodnet's] action, then, aims to reveal the "mask" that hides the workings of power and virtual capital." And Assange wrote in a blog post something startingly similar: "The more secretive or unjust an organization is, the more leaks induce fear and paranoia in its leadership and planning coterie." Both seem poised to expose the proverbial man behind the curtain in hope that greater transparency will result in fairer government processes.


So: how has our concept of cyberspace and its perception as a "public space" evolved since the EDT's demonstrations in the late 90s? (The article argues that no private boundaries were crossed, and the effects on the websites were perhaps no different from a large street demonstration as far as congestion, slowing of traffic are concerned, etc.) Is there a reason activists like Assange are using wildly different techniques than EDT to acheive perhaps similar political goals?




And a bit of musing on the role of risk to the tourists in Caminata Nocturna. Magelssen's account makes it seem that he was legitimately worried for his safety during the six-hour period: he worried about being separated from the group, being near precipitous ledges, etc. I was personally a bit horrified by the account of one of the managers of the park confirming that "twisted ankles" and "broken bones" have occurred during the simulation. That sort of real risk associated with the performance seems to have multiple purposes: providing a somewhat authentic experience, scaring the participants into not attempting the border crossing, and, perhaps, a sheer "adrenaline factor" associated with the danger. It doesn't seem that the simulation would be as widely discussed if it didn't have the "can you handle it?" factor. To bring another current event to the conversation, the current Broadway disaster (?) that is Spider-Man: Turn Off the Dark seems to have a similar vein of interest going for it, in that audiences attend out of simultaneous fascination and horror that there might be an accident during the performance (which very well could include the audience, seeing as the performers are sometimes above their seats). Can these situations really be compared, or is it an entirely different kind of risk? How does the presence of possible bodily harm validate the arguments that Caminata Nocturna is trying to make to its participants?

January 10th Questions

Last week, we discussed the idea that all intentional behavior can be considered performance because it is an intentional representation of an idea or person. What then, qualifies Dominguez's work as theatre? It does purposefully represent an idea, but is the use of code and electronic means theatre? Who is the performer? Is it the person writing the code, the person who's idea it is, or is the performer the group being marginalized?

In contrast to last week's photo article where all the participants were waiting, the simulated trip across the border is only 6 hours. How does this difference color the feelings about immigration in its participants? Both articles included parts about the experience discouraging illegal crossing, but for non-Mexican tourists who view it as an adventure, does it make them more or less sympathetic to the real life border crosser? Overall, does this performed experience make the real experience of others more or less poignant?