{"id":312,"date":"2025-11-13T16:41:25","date_gmt":"2025-11-13T16:41:25","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.critical-stages.org\/32\/?p=312"},"modified":"2025-12-18T19:22:02","modified_gmt":"2025-12-18T19:22:02","slug":"voices-in-between-three-contemporary-asian-theatre-makers-crossing-borders","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.critical-stages.org\/32\/voices-in-between-three-contemporary-asian-theatre-makers-crossing-borders\/","title":{"rendered":"Voices In-between: Three Contemporary Asian Theatre Makers Crossing Borders"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Beri Juraic<\/strong>*<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Abstract<\/strong><\/h5>\n\n\n\n

For decades many Asian theatre artists have engaged in intercultural performances that mostly showcase traditional performing arts in contemporary ways. These performances have often been mediated through English as a lingua franca and, following neocolonial models, supported by Western funding bodies or the mechanisms of Asian soft powers. However, in recent years several contemporary Asian theatre makers, working outside mainstream institutions and major theatre companies, have sought to go beyond identity politics subverting the Western notions of \u2018interculturalism\u2019 and \u201ctransculturalism\u201d through immersive performances, aural dramaturgies and linguistic ambiguity. In I Say Mingalaba, You Say Goodbye<\/font> (2022), Thai director\/playwright\/performer Jarunun Phantachat collaborated with Myanmar performers to reconstruct the history of Thailand-Myanmar relations. In performance, languages and cultures are completely muddled through the playful use of surtitling. Another project involved Japanese director Yudai Kamisato (born in Peru) and Malaysian director Mark Teh spending two weeks travelling around the Ry\u016bky\u016b (Okinawan) Islands each researching for their own respective artistic projects. This article explores Yudai Kamisato\u2019s Khao Khao Club<\/font> (2020-2021), an immersive performance project about the history of the alcohol trade in Southeast Asia. The project simultaneously addresses both Japanese and non-Japanese speaking audiences through dramaturgical strategies of seeing through listening and doing. Finally, in Filipino diaspora queer artist Joshua Serafin\u2019s PEARLS<\/font> (2024), part of Cosmic Gangbang<\/font> trilogy, vocal cords and translucent liquids take centre stage evoking difficulties of crossing borders in every sense; geographical, historical, personal and performative. Together with performers Lukresia Quismundo and Bunny Cadak, Serafin confronts the audience with the (im)possibility of kindness. Through a comparative-critical analysis of these three performances, this article illuminates the recent history of dramaturgies of crossing borders in Asia. By employing the notion of in-betweenness (Watsuji Tetsur\u014d) and kapwa (Virgilio G. Enriquez), the article explores how Asian theatre makers forge new methods of staging, performing and producing theatre to re-think the notions of exchange, listening\/hearing and language from an inter-Asian perspective.

Keywords:<\/strong> crossing borders, dramaturgy, aurality, intercultural, transcultural, in-betweenness, kapwa<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In October 2022, I found myself in Kyoto, Japan, at the Kyoto Experiment festival. I climbed down to Rohm Theatre Kyoto\u2019s North Hall space, where a staff member handed me a map. The production in question was Jarunun Phantachat\u2019s <\/em>I Say Mingalaba, You Say Goodbye, which premiered on 15 October 2022 at Kyoto Experiment. Moments later, I change to join<\/em> a group of audience members who were being taken on a fictional tour across the border between Thailand and Myanmar. With the map in hand, I followed the group as the performer welcomed us. They led us across the stage, which was littered with monitors, cables, props, and various pieces of scenery. It was a comical journey as the performers narrated the brief histories of the two countries, often tripping over the cables and props. These stories include, for example, a white elephant that was caught and brought back to King Ektakt, who named him Luan Kew Jaruna Pantacha, the people of Kanchanaburi, who sometimes saw Jaa\u2019s spirit at Sai Yok Noi Waterfall, or prisoners of war during the Second World War amongst others. After the tour, as I sat down in my seat, I could reread the comic stories in more detail. I also noticed on the reverse side of the map was an invitation to recite a prayer, as well as various QR codes that would eventually form part of the performance. It was unclear who was guiding whom in this performance. I wondered, as spectators, were we the tourists in this fictional world, guided by a map or by the performers? Did the director guide performers or were they taking over the production? The above amusing play on director Phantachat\u2019s identity (Jaa and Jaruna) seemed to be doing all the questioning. It was a critical dramaturgical device, bearing witness to the blurring of hierarchies and roles in theatre, and was arguably emblematic of the recent contemporary Asian theatre-making that crosses borders.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n

\n
\"\"
The stage tour before the performance of I Say Mingalaba, You Say Goodbye<\/em>, 2022. Directed by Jarunun Phantachat. Photo: Haruka Oka. Courtesy of Kyoto Experiment<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n
Beyond Intercultural and Transcultural Theatre<\/strong><\/h5>\n\n\n\n

For decades, many Asian theatre artists have participated and continue to participate in intercultural performances that predominantly showcase local traditions in contemporary forms. These performances have often been mediated through English as a lingua franca<\/em>, and, following neocolonial models, supported by either Western funding bodies or by mechanisms of Asian soft powers. In addition, such theatrical projects have centred around strong directorial figures such as Peter Brook, Ariane Mnouchkine, Suzuki Tadashi and more recently Miyagi Satoshi, Tim Supple, who offer, as festival curator Gordana Vnuk observes, \u201ca moussaka which tries to convince us, with a bit of Indian make-up, majestic Japanese costumes and roars of two to three dark-skinned actors, that it is engaging with the rest of the world\u201d (20).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In this article, I explore the works of performance makers Jarunun Phantachat, Yudai Kamisato,[1]<\/sup><\/a> and Joshua Serafin, who are working on the margins of dominant theatre circuits. Their works go beyond identity politics and theatrical hierarchies through immersive performances, aural dramaturgies, and linguistic ambiguity. The performance makers are process-oriented, not interested in presenting polished performances and expose theatrically their vulnerabilities as artists and human beings. They do not easily fit within Western frameworks of \u2018interculturalism\u2019 and \u2018transculturalism\u2019 categories.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I first examine the terms \u201cinterculturalism\u201d and \u201ctransculturalism\u201d in scholarship before proposing a new way of thinking about theatre crossing borders from an inter-Asian perspective. What philosophies, theories, and concepts in Asia could we employ that would complement Asian performances that cross borders?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In her study of the work of Japanese playwright and director Terayama Sh\u016bji, Carol Fisher Sorgenfrei employed a both\/and framework to discuss Terayama\u2019s theatre. Her balanced and nuanced approach enables Asian theories to be considered on equal terms with Western scholarship. Similarly, in World Theories of Theatre <\/em>(2017), Glenn Odom advocates for \u201cfurther examination of the intercultural nature of modern theatre theory\u201d by incorporating non-Western theatrical theory. Although I am primarily drawing upon the notion of in-betweenness<\/em> as proposed by Watsuji Tetsur\u014d in 1937 and kapwa, <\/em>as defined by Virgilio G. Enriquez in 1986, concepts I find more fitting for the works under discussion, I also align with Sorgenfrei\u2019s and Odom\u2019s theoretical and methodological approaches.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In the second part, through a comparative-critical analysis of three performances, I will illuminate the recent dramaturgies of crossing borders in Asia. These include the following: I Say Mingalaba, You Say Goodbye<\/em> (2022) by Jarunun Phantachat, Khao Khao Club<\/em> (2020-2021) by Yudai Kamisato, and PEARLS<\/em> (2023) by Joshua Serafin. These three performance makers are by no means the only representatives of new theatre crossing borders, but their works exhibit specific characteristics that are interesting for my analysis.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

 Rather than working with static terms such as \u201ccross-border theatre,\u201d my notion of crossing borders<\/em> centres on an active and ambiguous process of crossing physical, dramaturgical, and imaginary borders. I also consider how Asian theatre makers forge new methods of staging, performing, and producing theatre to re-think the notions of exchange, listening\/hearing, and language from an inter-Asian perspective. My methodology is also based on thick description<\/em> as proposed by anthropologist Clifford Geertz.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This method allows me to contextualise their works within complex cultural and linguistic environments. While artistic and linguistic references are important characteristics in the works of Phantachat, Kamisato, and Serafin, I will, as much as possible, refrain from designating theatre makers according to their national identity. These theatre makers are in constant movement between various locations: Phantachat between Bangkok, Mae Sae, and Tachileik; Kamisato between Tokyo, Okinawa, and Lima; and Serafin between Bacolod City and Brussels. All three of them move between places in the rest of Asia and the world. These moments of in-betweenness are a significant trait of their creative practice.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

How can this in-betweenness be reflected in inter-Asian theatre scholarship? Intercultural theatre<\/em>, a Western concept developed in the 1970s as an exploration of how different cultures interact in theatre, has been extensively critiqued by scholars such as Rustom Bharucha, Una Chaudhuri, Helen Gilbert and Jacqueline Lo, and Marvin Carlson. I do not wish to repeat what is widely acknowledged but rather point out how we might think differently and coin new terms and concepts without categorisation. For example, Patrice Pavis\u2019 hourglass model, where sand representing one culture seeps into a single container of the other culture, has long been regarded as a representative model for analysing intercultural theatre. By contrast, through the works that I explore, we can imagine two sand containers each simultaneously sieving into separate empty containers. These containers are in proximity; perhaps even touching, but they remain separate and private. This is particularly evident in the works of Lima-born Tokyo-based director Yudai Kamisato, as I will demonstrate later.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Along with Phantachat and Serafin, Kamisato\u2019s works are open to plurality without mixing. They demand that their audiences and the creative team think beyond finding \u201cvalue\u201d in exchange to create new temporary performance assemblies that are based on spending time together or just being without the need to give or receive, as Malzacher explores in The Art of Assembly – Political Theatre Today<\/em>, albeit in a different context. By contrast, Fisher-Lichte proposes the concept of \u201cinterweaving of performance cultures\u201d as a process of continual production of \u201cnew differences\u201d in which \u201cthese differences are not understood as opposites but seen within and as well as\u201d (11). While I agree with Fischer-Lichte on the continuity of the process, such concepts still categorise and label certain performance practices, thereby introducing elements of \u201cvalue\u201d into the discourse about theatre crossing borders. I would recall here \u00c9douard Glissant\u2019s notion of opacity in Poetics of Relation<\/em>, who observes: \u201cto conceive opacity of other for me, without reproach for my opacity for him [\u2026] it is not necessary to try to become the other (to become other), nor to \u2018make\u2019 him in my image\u201d (193). In other words, it is about the separate weaves that might touch, but without the need to transform or change.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Although less common, the notion of transcultural theatre has most recently gained some ground in scholarship. In Transcultural Theatre<\/em>, G\u00fcnther Heeg states that \u201ctranscultural theatre is theatre of becoming,\u201d that \u201cmust be repeatedly questioned anew and cannot be grasped, defined or located as a special category of theatre.\u201d Yet, Heeg\u2019s thinking about transcultural theatre is problematic as it tries to universalize theatrical experiences based on European philosophy (in his case Deleuzian). In other words, while Heeg proposes interesting ideas, it is still one-sided. Mary Mazilli\u2019s study of the Nobel-Prize winning Chinese (French) playwright Gao Xingjian attempts to articulate a new term postdramatic transnationalism<\/em>, following Hans-Thies Lehmann\u2019s postdramatic theatre, that \u201caccounts for a variety of styles and influences but also interprets transnationalism by the very nature of a postdramatic discourse\u201d (Gao Xingjian’s Post-Exile Plays,<\/em> 6-7). The study nevertheless lacks an Asian perspective \u2013 first, Lehmann advocates for process rather than the finished product, and her study has minimal descriptions of the process or the performances themselves. Second, she does not engage with the Chinese version of Lehmann\u2019s book, which introduces, by way of translation, a new definition of theatre into Chinese scholarship (namely, repurposing the word juchang<\/em> \u5267\u573a<\/strong>).[2]<\/sup><\/a> In contrast, a number of Asian theatre scholars have recently started employing holistic frameworks that redefine theatre crossing borders. Kyoko Iwaki\u2019s notion of \u201cdrifting\u201d to describe the work of theatre director Mark Teh based on ethnologist and folklorist Orikuchi Shinobu\u2019s work on ukare-bito <\/em>or fur\u014dmin <\/em>(drifting people<\/em>). Similarly, Rosella Ferrari introduces the concept \u201cAsian Theatre as Method\u201d to propose a model for inter-referencing among Asian theatre-makers. Both intercultural and transcultural theatre also present ethical problems that cannot be addressed solely with Western scholarship in mind. To address these shortcomings and avoid the universalizing tendencies of Western frameworks, I turn to relational Asian philosophies and concepts that centre on interconnectedness.<\/p>\n\n\n

\n
\"\"
Words wavering in-between the projection and the curtain. PEARLS <\/em>by Joshua Serafin.<\/em> Photo: Andrea Avezz\u00f9. Photo: Courtesy of La Biennale di Venezia. Courtesy of Joshua Serafin<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n
In-Betweenness and Kapwa<\/em><\/strong><\/h5>\n\n\n\n

In this paper, I base my arguments on the concept of \u201cin-betweenness\u201d proposed by Watsuji Tetsur\u014d between 1937 and 1949 across three volumes. Watsuji uses the Japanese word ningen <\/em>(\u4eba\u9593), which combines the characters for “person” (hito<\/em>) and “between” (aida<\/em>). The term refers not merely to an \u2018individual human being\u2019 or simply to society; rather, \u201cindividuals are basically different from society and yet dissolve themselves into society\u201d (15). This is very contradictory but nevertheless it expresses that the \u201clocus of ethical problems lies not in the consciousness of isolated individual, but precisely in the in-betweenness of person and person\u201d (10). In addition, Watsuji introduces the concept yononaka <\/em>(\u4e16\u306e\u4e2d), which combines the characters for “society” and “inside,” reflecting the relational and interdependent thinking about in-betweenness. <\/em>Watsuji explains:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

We cannot sustain ourselves in any aida <\/em>or naka <\/em>without acting subjectively. At the same time, we cannot act without maintaining ourselves in some aida <\/em>or naka<\/em>. For this reason, aida <\/em>or naka <\/em>imply a living and dynamic betweenness, as a subjective interconnection of acts (18).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In other words, Watsuji here discusses the spatio-temporal relationship between a person and a person. For Watsuji this is the basis of human existence, which is simultaneously historical, climatic and social. Comparatively, the key concept in Filipino psychology that describes interpersonal behaviours is kapwa<\/em>. Virgilio G. Enriquez describes the term as \u201cunity of self and others.\u201d In addition, pakikipagkapwa <\/em>refers to the practice of seeing ourselves connected to others, to \u201cthe humanness to its highest order\u201d (Santiago qtd. in Enriquez 12).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Building on this conceptual foundation, it is essential to examine how Watsuji\u2019s philosophy and Enriquez\u2019s ideas intersect to create a nuanced framework for understanding theatre and performance from an inter-Asian perspective. Both thinkers emphasize relationality over individualism, creating fertile ground for exploring performative practices that transcend rigid national or cultural boundaries. In Watsuji\u2019s ethical system, ningen sonzai<\/em> (human existence) is not a fixed state but a dynamic process constantly negotiated through aidagara<\/em>, the betweenness of relationships. This dynamic relationality highlights the performative act as a space of negotiation and ethical involvement, a liminal space, a lived expression of aida<\/em>, where personal and communal identities interact, sometimes harmoniously, sometimes contentiously.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This is particularly significant in a region that has not fully addressed its historical traumas before and after the Second World War. Here, kapwa <\/em>and pakikipagkapwa<\/em> come into play, as they are based on shared humanity while allowing room for individual differences. Pakikipagkapwa <\/em>can be viewed through a performative lens. Performers and audiences engage in acts of recognition, empathy, and solidarity. When seen through the lens of aidagara<\/em> and kapwa<\/em>, theatre <\/em>that crosses<\/em> borders<\/em> becomes a productive space for both convergence and tension. Contemporary performances challenge the often-homogenizing discourse of Asian theatre by emphasizing the specificity of cultural contexts while also highlighting mutual ethical relations and concerns. Next, I offer comparative performance analyses related to these concepts.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n