21 22 23 EN Handeln durch Unterlassen. Ein installativ performatives Diskursformat
©Nora Sobbe
HOW THE INSTALLATIVE SETUP WORKS
The installative set-up can comprise up to 20 buzzers that function on a visual level. There is one foot-buzzer per person. Part of the programmed dialogue dramaturgy are so-called push-phases, in which it is decided whether the buzzers light up or not. A push-button inside the buzzer can be pressed with the foot. The decision of the dialogue participants for or against a buzzer-push is not visible through a dome and is therefore anonymous. If at least one person does not press the button inside the buzzer, the buzzer does not light up and a reflexive phase about the discussion room is initiated.
The phases of a discussion in the installative structure are listed below. This list is not to be understood chronologically. The order in which and whether all phases are run through depends on the push behaviour of the discussion participants during the push-phases. The length of the speaking phases in the course of the discussion can be defined at the beginning. A discussion with discussion-phases of 13 minutes each lasts a total of 41-47 minutes – depending on the push behaviour of the discussion participants during the push phases.
PUSH-PHASE
During the push-phases (1 min each), the participants are asked to decide in favour of or against a buzzer-push: The buzzer-push means an affirmative positioning on the discussion situation. Not pressing the buzzer initiates a reflective phase about the discussion room. If all dialogue participants press the foot switch inside the buzzer inside the buzzer, the discussion room is updated as usual and discussed again with the buzzer lighting up. If at least one person omits the the buzzer-push, a reflective phase about the discussion room is initiated (INTERIM REFLECTION | INTERIM REFLECTION). The subsequent discussion phase takes place when the buzzer is not lit.
There are three push phases in total: 1x at the start of the discussion to launch the mechanism. 2x during the discussion.
DISCUSSION PHASES UNDER LIGHTING UP
Once all participants in the discussion have positioned themselves with a buzzer push and thus affirmed the room formation, an x-minute discussion phase follows with the buzzers lighting up.
REFLECTIVE PHASE 1: COLLECTIVE SILENCE | REFLECTIVE PHASE 2: EXCHANGE ON DISCUSSION DYNAMICS SO FAR
If at least one person omits the buzzer push during one of the push phases, a 1-minute collective silence / pause is initiated. If at least one person omits the buzzer push again in a subsequent push phase, there is a 5-minute reflection on the discussion room and the dynamics of the discussion so far.
This can be used to approach the discussion space together in a descriptive manner, to communicate expectations and possible demands on the discussion space or to express any unease about the discussion dynamics to date. It is also possible to leave the room – an option that usually already exists, but which, if provided for in a room dramaturgy may be easier to implement.
DISCUSSION PHASE UNDER NON-LIGHTING UP
After a reflective phase in the course of the discussion (REFLEXIVE PHASE 1 + 2), the subsequent discussion phase takes place when the buzzers are not lit. The non-lighting of the buzzer indicates a momentary vagueness with regard to the formation of the discussion space – a reflexive phase was previously initiated by at least one omitted buzzer push.
21 22 23
short description: Handeln durch Unterlassen (Act by Omission) is a programmed dramaturgy of conversation. It is characterised by two moments that enable the participants to intervene in the conversational space (GER Gesprächsraum) silently and in the mode of omission. Connected via foot-buzzers, the participants can initiate reflexive phases about the shared discussion space by refraining from a buzzer-push. The installative setup communicates with the participants via light signals.
project description: Handeln durch Unterlassen (Act by Omission) sees itself as an attempt to create a discourse space that reflexively questions itself in moments of a discussion dynamic that is perceived as inhibited. The decisive factor here is that such reflexive phases can be called for during the conversation silently and in the mode of omission. The participants are connected via foot buzzers and are asked twice during the discussion to choose whether to press or not to press a button inside the buzzer. The design of the buzzer allows to press the Button unseen and therefore anonymously. If you press the button, it means that the discussion should continue as existing. If you choose not to press, a reflective phase about the shared discussion space is initiated. This would mean first reflecting on the discussion space in a minute of silence. And then, in a next step, if again someone refrains from pushing, it would mean to have a shared exchange about the discussion so far. This could mean, sharing one‘s own expectations and demands on the discussion or it could also mean to approach the shared discussion space by describing how you have perceived the dynamics of the conversation so far. Was it possible for you to participate as you wished to do?
Research Interest: HdU responds to a research interest in how silence can be effectively integrated into conversational situations without remaining in the paradox of inviting silent positionings to comment on their respective silences by speaking or to explain possible motives. In a kind of hermeneutics of silence, I have begun to explore the spectrum of different modes of silence, based on my own experiences of speech dynamics in various discussion contexts. Silence, for example, can be a very powerful act of ascribing the conversational space to other participants in the discussion and evading responsibility for transforming the common conversational space. At the same time, with Miranda Fricker‘s concept of Hermeneutical Injustice [1], among others, silence should be considered as a potential silence due to unequal power relations of a structural nature. Miranda Fricker refers to a form of silence that occurs due to a lack of collective hermeneutical resources for certain social experiences.
Handeln durch Unterlassen hosting follow-up discussions on Performances:
HdU is also suitable as a discussion format for follow-up discussions on performances. In contrast to the ‘Artist Talk’, I see the installative structure as an opportunity to focus on the constitutive function of the audience for performances - by connecting the discussion participants via foot buzzers, an understanding of a discourse space is proposed that considers all those physically present as participants in the discourse and not only includes temporary speakers.
[1] Miranda Fricker, Epistemic Injustice. Power and the Ethics of Knowledge, New York 2007.
concept | object-design: Nora Sobbe
technical realisation | lighting-design: Paul Matyschok
further development technical realisation of the push-button: Antonía Orfanou
dramaturgical support: Ronja Landtau
moderation: Ronja Landtau | Olga Popova