Then, we have, on the other hand, the theatre cultures of colonized countries; for instance, Parsi Theatre in India, which started – am I right? – in the late 19th century as far as I know. This theatre was the result of a process of interweaving – the proscenium arch and painted backdrop were taken from the English theatre as were the fantastical scenic effects, storm and battle scenes, explosions and all necessary machinery of the theatre, sumptuous costumes and make-up, the front curtain, tableau and choral singing at the beginning and close of the play. The dance sections, on the contrary, had their origins in Indian dance traditions, and classical Indian music was the basis for the songs, which were mostly lifted from different regional theatre forms. Similarly, the sources from which the dramas drew their themes came directly from folk theatre: Parsi romances, Hindu legends and mythology. Or, another example are the so-called Concert Parties of the 1920s in Africa. This genre of music theatre made use of revue style, North American minstrel shows, of English music hall and of Hollywood films in a free dramaturgy close to traditional African theatre in which music, dance, song, talking to the audience, dialogues and slapstick numbers alternated within one performance. The Concert Party consisted mainly of themes on contemporary urban life and the problems surrounding it. The critical flexibility and openness of this theatre form made it a valuable and important instrument of the anti-colonial movement. These examples show that these developments emerged in colonial contexts, where, first, of course, the British colonizers more or less imposed their own repertoire and their own modes of doing theatre; new mixtures of theatre at an indigenous level responded to the process of colonization.

But – and this is the important point – no one thought of calling any of these forms of theatre “intercultural.” They were transformations of already existing forms of theatre by different means, which reached out – or responded – to other cultures.

So the question really is: what became so different that we needed to introduce the term “intercultural”? There can, of course, be lots of hypotheses, and I think each of you will have her or his own hypothesis. In my opinion, it has to do with the fact that the independence movements in colonial states were more or less successful everywhere. In Africa, the last state became independent in the 1960s. So we have, let’s say, a new map of the world. We no longer have – at first glance – the division between independent nations and colonized ones, the colonizer and the colonized.

In this context, it seems to me that “intercultural” was used as a term that came to suggest that all nations can now meet on an equal ground. It’s no wonder that this term came up in the West. The West was interested in suggesting the idea that we all meet on an equal ground. Interestingly enough, in all those cases where the term “intercultural” was applied, it always indicated a mixture of something Western and non-Western. Not of something within Africa, or between Africa and Latin America, or between different Asian states. No, these relationships had nothing to do with “intercultural.” “Intercultural” referred to those theatre forms that positioned the West against the rest – we could put it like that.

The question arises whether the term “intercultural”, whether this idea that we are all equals, was ultimately meant to imply that the West is superior, and remains superior; that it stays involved. Involved in the sense that theatre people who do not take up elements from the West will be excluded from tours to the West, from the great festival circuits, which started around the same time. So the use of the “intercultural”, let’s say, is a more or less friendly warning: don’t think you can disconnect from us. If you do, we will leave you where you are. You have no other choice but to take elements from us, then we will recognize you. To give an example: the production of Lear by Ong Keng Sen, for instance, dealt more or less with inter-Asian relationships. But it is significant that he chose to focus on Lear so that he had some Western element in his production in order to secure the interest of the West, which enabled the production to tour.

For me the term “intercultural” is strongly connected with all these problems. So when the opportunity opened for creating this Centre the question “What term do we use?” arose. Do we stick to “intercultural” just because everybody knows what it is, which is much better for institutional purposes? Or do we take this opportunity not to use the term any longer, but to look for another one?

This is how we arrived at the German word Verflechtungen. There is, of course, as all of you who work in this field know only too well, no exact translation for such words. You could say that it is a kind of “braiding”, but this sounds awkward in English. So for the English version, then, we arrived at the metaphor of “weaving”, which in turn led to calling the Centre “interweaving performance cultures”, or, as we sometimes put it, an “interweaving of cultures in performance.” So those are the two terms.

As these terms are not already loaded with a certain historical baggage, we thought, let’s introduce them in order to look at all these new and different kinds of interaction and cooperation in performance. We do not only concern ourselves with productions which use elements from here or there, but also with the collaborations taking place in the larger world of theatre – also those within a culture through its internal diversities. Here in Berlin, the existence of, among others, the Turkish community raises the question of whether and how theatre is able to ensure cultural diversity even within one culture, and under what conditions such theatre can be productive for society at large by demonstrating the creativity of multicultural collaboration. While, at the time of the old Schaubühne, an attempt was made to have a ‘purely’ Turkish theatre in Berlin, with Turkish actors using the Turkish language only, today, the theatre Ballhaus Naunynstraße demonstrates the creative potential of a collaboration of artists from different cultural backgrounds. Therefore, we said, well, let’s just put this new term on the map and see what happens. It opens up new possibilities and gives us the opportunity to leave some of the baggage behind which, in my view, comes with the term “intercultural.”

So, now that I have more or less explained why we changed the terminology, I think I should stop here. And now it is your turn, Rustom.