Dear all
answer this letter with the request to sign the document, which for now will not sign. Not because I could not subscribe, because I have the basic agreement, but because they are in doubt about which group we are, who want to be. I have no idea that they actually knew the people in these two weekends (there were too many new people this time) and I have no idea of \u200b\u200bknowing what it means for many people who sign this document in practice. And like I said Sunday morning, I think that is a risk of superficiality, if not deepened what is written in the document. Commitments that take? I take that commitment by signing? I'm not a politician. I am a person who acts with the body, with my whole being, which seeks to raise awareness of theater work reports by the person who goes to market, students of schools and universities, public theater, the politicians, who does laws, parliamentarians, Italian, European ... Giving voice to those who did not have it, a refugee woman in the middle east, those who live in poverty, illegal, and so on ...
I come from an education and a very special study. In those days my academy was a collective. We tried to decide to pursue an academy for drama teachers (for students study 4 to 6 years after high school) in a truly democratic. Dividing the responsibilities that went into working groups to take care of the building, make a plan for the remaining rounds of the custodian of the day (always one of us, teacher or student), representation at national level related to meetings with government, the request for recognition academy, to create the program of study, take care of the administration, find the money to exist as a recognized academy in those days (now, and my degree has become the state!). To decide which various working groups brought their proposals at a plenary week and voted all the proposals. For important proposals were voted the voting unit, if accepted, a person could stop everything. Not always for the democratic decisions of great importance seemed that the majority decided. It threatened at moments that the minority did not feel that this academy was more to them, represented them. That was evident in a plenary, where they spoke of a trend anarchist (a group of academia in research and improvisational theater, he had improvised terrorist, had gone to town and threw paint bombs against the banks). At that time it was suggested that the closure of the academy and they voted to Unani. One person wanted to close the academy in any way saying that this academy had to take all the responsibility, the individual, collective and that of society (it was a basic rule of academia). That compared to society in that improvisation was gone. At the end we were all in agreement on the responsibility on all levels and the academy went on. But it was a moment that we have discussed until late night, not knowing if the day after the academy it would be yet. Of course we also talked about things a lot more regular meetings, which were prepared, moderate, and everything was written, every vote, every decision in the book Plenary (there were no computers.)
The fact is that once a week it was decided by a vote on anything and sometimes it was too tiring, but I think all of us to manage that time he taught an academy not only to guide the meeting and to artists, actors, but also know how to organize writing projects and so on, and he felt that the academy was really ours.
Light was that whoever had started this experience, who had years of work experience, bringing his experience, his vision, but whatever it was that voting was decided, was not automatic and you just followed these people.
In the situation of civil liability does not say that everything will go that way, we should be a collective but I really feel that everyone feels that the document is ours. This is why I think it needs to deepen, to have moments that we can discuss in small groups on different topics, or document and make conclusions. I miss him, although there were so many witnesses, the participation, the decisions where you feel that include things that people say.
And for me, Annet, if you really want to do a new policy, we must start with a change within us. Because we are jointly responsible now that there is no policy. I wonder, really, and I think that would be the original question, what did we go wrong us, what my mistake, it went how it went. Because if we do not see the errors within us, how can we expect that something will change. In this group I feel close to the goodwill, the habits of a policy that did not work. And I feel that it is almost impossible to put into question, put your own actions and way of discussion. It 'much easier to identify the culprits out of the group, analyzing everything except ourselves. In fact I think you try to avoid conflict, and cover this with a sense that we will not (yet) fully achieved.
What shocked me was the end of Sunday morning. I do not expect such a reaction to a question someone's insecurity on the name. A question and doubt that had already come out and sometimes even from other people and that has always been left in the half. You could react in many ways on this question, type the next time we'll discuss it. I do not understand the aggression that took place. The insecurities of the doubts people are taken seriously in my opinion. If not, it seems that you try to put in front of their ideas, finding those of the other disturbing. When I said, please find another name for good practice, I felt that was disturbing and no one has asked why? I reason, I've been in several meetings in the European Parliament on best practices, and in the end these practices were good arguments, not always fair, showing a partial truth, to get money for projects in Europe. Therefore I will not name them like that. Then you can decide that it is important that you use that word in the agreement and their people, including me will be happy because they have been heard and there was a ragionament above. I've heard several people who are unhappy about how there were the days. I hope you will take the responsibility to give their testimony on this so that it can positively influence the work.
I wanted to give my thoughts in this respect. We can discuss it. I feel that my work in theater reportage is my strength and I do not know what the policy is. I think that is also used in politics to hear the voices you hear over and I work as an actress and director who brings to the stage in the square directly in the conference room you hear voices. For me, I decide what to do. Not sure yet if I want to come next time. I think I'll be able to allow the reactions to see if there were, affect the way in which you continue.
I'm no politician, but I met with many political realities and belief change politics is a lot of work, daily, Faticanti, risky. I would be happy that we could ... We'll see how it goes next time.
My thoughts / desire to base my work and also for the policy would be to act and do not always react against.
Greetings from the heart at all and I apologize for the length of language errors. I will not ask anyone to correct. I speak and write Italian, but will never be my mother tongue, as I'd like to be perfect, I make mistakes.
A hug to all
Annet Henneman
0 comments:
Post a Comment