The beginning and before: theatre of the oppressed at Beit T'Shuvah

The following paper critically examines both internally and externally the process of applying theater arts to the treatment and recovery of drug addicts and alcoholics. ❧ The setting for the work is Beit T’Shuvah, a treatment center in Los Angeles and the characters are myself and the residents of BTS who came to the Theater of the Oppressed group I offered through the support of the Applied Theater Arts Masters program at USC. ❧ Throughout the paper I interrogate my own personal experience of the work, as well as the work itself. The paper concludes with a further examination of some of these questions: How does participatory action research work with people recovering from drug and alcohol addiction? Is there a “perfect” PAR? Is it possible to work in a fully participatory fashion with a group that is in constant flux, givin a limited amount of time? How do the practices of PAR research and Theatre of the Oppressed differ? and finally, How are they possibly the same, and if so, how might we fulfill both roles at the same time? ❧ Transparency is key in this type of work and, as such, is key in the telling of its story. I found myself questioning whether there may be a need to maintain a certain level of professionalism that could conflict with full transparency? Where do we draw this line? ❧ As the work was incredibly personal, I thought it only right to include the personal struggles and obstacles I encountered along the journey. The goal of this text is to track personal progress while maintaining a critical perspective of the work as a whole.

本文从内外双重视角，批判性审视戏剧艺术应用于药物成瘾者与酒精依赖者的治疗与康复全流程。
本研究的开展场地为洛杉矶的治疗机构Beit T’Shuvah（简称BTS），研究主体包括笔者本人，以及参与笔者依托南加州大学（University of Southern California，简称USC）应用戏剧艺术硕士项目开设的被压迫者剧场（Theater of the Oppressed）小组的BTS入住者。
全文中，笔者既对自身参与本研究的个人体验进行反思与拷问，也对研究实践本身展开系统性剖析。文末，笔者进一步探讨了如下核心问题：参与式行动研究（Participatory Action Research，简称PAR）如何与物质成瘾康复者开展协作？是否存在“完美”的参与式行动研究？面对成员持续变动且合作时长有限的小组，能否以完全参与式的模式开展工作？参与式行动研究与被压迫者剧场的实践路径存在哪些差异？最后，二者是否存在共通之处？若存在，我们该如何同时兼顾两者的角色定位？
在这类研究实践中，透明度是核心要义，因此也是讲述研究历程的关键所在。笔者不禁反思：是否需要维持一定程度的专业操守，而这会不会与完全的透明度产生冲突？我们又该如何划定这条边界？
由于本研究极具个人叙事色彩，笔者认为理应将研究过程中遭遇的个人困境与阻碍纳入文本。本文旨在追踪研究者的个人成长轨迹，同时对整体研究实践保持批判性审视视角。