Network.
A network is system for support or gain, for sustainability or advancement.
Cooperation.
I found the information on Game Theory, as an aspect of networking, very interesting. Especially the "Prisoner's Dilemma " scenario.
Axelrod's theory : people will cooperate fully with others, until they reach a point of maximum benefit, and then defect.
This is at the heart of my reluctance to network.
The idea that people want your association purely for what they may gain from the connection, I find a little cold.
The added fact that the connection may be severed at a time the associate deems your value to the network, obsolete, I find even colder.
But if I think about it, is this not what I do?
There are people in my current network that are simply there because I place a value on their connections, their experience. It's not that I dislike them, I don't know them. Similarly at the beginning of a new year, I cull my social network (Facebook). It's not a stretch to think there may come a time I do the same to my profession network.
I need to get my head around the fact that this is an acceptable practice. I need to overcome my sense of guilt (born from the belief that I am partaking in an exercise in exploitation.) And, realise my aversion to the act of defection, probably stems from my fear/frustration of being abandoned myself.
Affiliation
There are two theories for affiliation.
Social Comparison Theory.
Theory of Social Exchange.
Social Comparison Theory states "to know ourselves and better understand our place in social environment is to compare ourselves to others." (social psychology psy 403. Zee Pedia web page.)
This rings true with my learning experience at drama school. It was encouraged that we should strive to be the best we could be, not just the best in the school. However, living in a microcosm of 60 students everyday, it was inevitable our desire to out shine one another would feel like an immediate priority. We were also encouraged to critique other performances as long as it was constructive. By observing others, studying their strengths and weakness in technique, I was able to gauge where I stood as a performer.
If someone had good stagecraft, I would learn from them. It was just as important to recognise bad acting. If you can identify it, you should have the sense not to produce something similar in quality.
All this was only possible by first being affiliated with the group. That is, I had to be a member of the group to establish where I stood in my learning and ability. This would not have been achievable from a position of solitude.
Theory of social exchange.
George Hormans (1958) stated that "all social relationships are like economic bargains in which each party places a value on the goods they exchange with one another."
I certainly place a value on what I do as a performer, both artistically and financially (I have to eat).
Truth be told, I do try to distance myself from the monetary aspect. I have this wacky notion it's about the art. This means when I am involved in a project as an actor, the value I place on my work is high. I believe I can be professional in attitude, consistent- yet -flexible, and ultimately deliver what the director is looking for. OK, this last one comes with its fair share of self doubt and fear. But the principle is sound and so to is the desire to deliver. When I join a network and announce "I am an actor", I am placing a value on my craft and recognising others may do the same.
But, it is a two way street. I also place a value on the work of those I connect with. I may target certain people/projects because : I have always wanted to act this part, in this theatre, with that director, that actor etc.
I place a value on the experience I will gain from the collaboration.
Also my engagement with people in my network differs from person to person.
I am by nature a private person. Therefore I first thought my levels of interaction fell under that banner. However the more I reflect on my practice in this matter, the more I am convinced my level of engagement is based on a value scale. I think it is human nature to gravitate towards people who have similar opinions to you, and on a physiological level, have an empathy with you.
This of course, in part, is the attraction of my professional network. But also the more value I place on an interaction, the more I will engage in said interaction. Likewise if someone values the association and I see little in it at that time, I may limit my correspondence.
I stress "at that time" because the level of affiliation with an individual is always in a state of flux. I do this with all my network. It is done almost instinctively, however as my explanation shows, it is actually a carefully implemented strategy, based on physiological need, and the desire for relevant knowledge to serve my current need, and ultimately, advancement.
I recently tweeted an established actor with an acting practice question. The actor is currently busy in LA, filming. Yet he took the time to impart some knowledge.
If I tweeted him again I may not get a response. Within the dynamic of this exchange, the another person would dictate the level of interaction .
I will just end this section by saying I have made my affiliation/networking sound quite brutal and business-like. I still act for the thrill of it, and enjoy collaborating, gaining knowledge and connecting with other people in the profession, for the same reason. It's just now, after reflection, I realise there are more motives at work.
"I reject your reality, and substitute it with one of my own." Adam Savage. Myth Busters.
Constructivism, Objectivism, Connectivism.
I love the quote above, because I think it's what acting is all about. As actors on a stage, do we not create a world, a reality, that differs to the reality outside the theater? But, one that echos the human experience, the search for meaning in the world around us.
Constructivism
Constructivism suggests that learners create knowledge as they attempt to understand their experience. (Driscoll 2000)
Objectivism
The notion that truth and meaning resides in the object independently of any consciousness, and that appropriate methods of inquiry can bring us accurate and certain knowledge of that truth.
Both theories are quite frankly, way over my head. Do I favour one above the other? How do I apply them to my network?
Well, first off, I'm not going to view it in terms of my broader network. Instead I will approach it from a smaller network : a theater company. If my professional network is the internet, then a company of actors is an intranet. This doesn't mean that it is a loop of knowledge - just the sum of its members. No because, as the actors all work through a text, old knowledge is challenged( through experience : rehearsal), and new knowledge is born. The company as a network evolves through it's interaction with one another. Many times I have been in rehearsal and the director has said "just play with the text." The performers would then experiment, and new meaning in the text could be realized.
However, I think this can only be achieved if the individual has some knowledge of the world and meaning , already at their disposal. And surely, that basic knowledge must be the general consensus of the company, the immediate network. Otherwise we are in an "Adam Savage" situation where my understanding of reality, isn't necessarily yours. I think this fundamental knowledge is what we build our broader understanding on. Does that new learning then become the definitive knowledge?
I do believe that I need to experience more of the world around me, if I am to become a better actor. This also means engaging more with my network. Indeed, since I started this project I have been conversing with many old contacts and establishing quite a few new ones. I have also joined a writers group (purely as an actor) as a means to platform my acting, to a new selection of writers and directors.
OK. Constructivism I can get behind. It's inherent in my practice as an actor, and has been a way of gaining knowledge and understanding, all my adult life (whether I knew it or not).
However, there s a quality in Objectivism, that I find quite seductive. I think it is because as a child you are taught that knowledge can be found within the pages of a text book. Ink on the page, makes it ,concrete, unchanging, definitive. As a child I thought all knowledge, the only knowledge, was held in the encyclopedias at home. And the only new discoveries were being made by astronauts. Of course, as I grew I realised, discovery - knowledge - meaning, was changing at a quicker rate than the Earth turned.
Wind forward : 2009. Drama school. Acting Text class. What does the teacher tell us?
"The author has served you well. Everything you need to know is in the text. You just have to find it."
Is this not Objectivism?
No comments:
Post a Comment