The Point of This Discussion

In the comments to the last post, A commenter "Bull Abbot" writes:

What is the point of this discussion, exactly? Is there a diversity-quota that needs to be filled for all walks of life regardless of statistical representation? What ends are this discussion to be followed? If so, who needs to be replaced? Who makes the decision? Is it you? "The people?" Or some diversity-committee selected by...who?

I don't mean to strike a belligerent tone, heaven forfend, but when you become an arbitrator of diversity, aren't you in effect becoming someone who judges people based on the color of their skin, not the content of their character? You say "it's 2009, after all" as if that means that it's some sort of new V-E Day. Who are the Albert Speers and Herman Goerings in the world of Chicago theatre critics, sitting in the dock in front of rows of steel-helmeted MPs?

Listen, I like this blog and its ideals quite a bit, even a lot. But as in all revolutions, one has to be the little voice that asks: To what end? Who are you asking to be put up against the wall and read their last rites? Is "intolerance" the secret word toted by the googly-eyed duck falling from the ceiling here? With the state of newspaper journalism dying the grim, grisly way it is, I certainly hope not.

I think that is a new record for speed in breaking out Godwin's law on my blog; however, I thought my response might be worth reiterating:

The point of this discussion is, well, discussion. Representation begins with awareness. Awareness begins with discussion. Discussion is aided by evidence. That's the whole point of this particular post.

Now, while I'm not exactly shy with my thoughts, I have never argued for a quota or to be some sort of arbitrator. I have argued repeatedly for inclusiveness.

I've never spoken of last rites. (Though I can think of at least one critic I wouldn't mind seeing retire.) Is it possible to be inclusive without analogies of people being shot? Can you open doors without the need to slam others shut?

Yep, the state of newspaper journalism is dying--as is the current state of theaters. Both have a lot of things in common. They were asleep at the wheel for decades and did not see the world changing around them. Both are now scrambling to catch up.

So, you tell me: how does one attract new audiences, new readers without doing anything new?

The world has changed and if papers and theaters want to stay in business, it would behoove them to change with it.

So while I may be an overt advocate in terms of inclusion, a realist would also point out that including bold new voices has repeatedly attracted new audiences and readers. (If it is true inclusion and not token-ism.)

The status quo isn't working too well.

Here's the kicker. I haven't spoken with a single critic (and I've spoken with many on two continents and in two languages) who hasn't on some level argued that our stages need to be far more inclusive.

So if critics argue--as many in Chicago have for at least a decade and a half--that there needs to be better representation by theaters, wouldn't the logical extension also be true? There needs to be better representation in the critical body?

Or is dialogue a problem?