The following is an interim analysis of the plays in the upcoming 2012-13 theater season in DC. They have been analyzed along three key lines: gender, race, and geography. The intent of the analysis is to provide an accurate demographic breakdown of the plays being produced… and, hopefully, to provide accurate data around which to orient ongoing conversations about the ways in which the theaters in the DC area are serving their constituents and communities. This will, I hope, become an annual analysis that will track the progress (or the lack thereof) of several key indices.
Please note the word “interim” in the above paragraph. As of the drafting of this initial analysis, only 20 of the region’s 80+ theaters have announced their seasons: a statistically significant (I believe) sample, but by no means a fully accurate one. Of particular importance: given that larger theaters tend to be more likely to announce their seasons earlier in the year — as well as the fact that some smaller companies do not announce any seasons at all — this analysis is a bit skewed toward bigger institutions, though it does include a very diverse cross-section. In any event, this analysis will be updated periodically to reflect new data as it becomes available — and eventually to provide, in retrospect, an accurate rear-view breakdown of the season.
Finally, before the numbers, a note about process. The data was compiled on a spreadsheet shared via Google docs. The primary contributors to the data were Gwydion Suilebhan and Gregg Henry, though the spreadsheet was also reviewed by several other members of the DC-Area Playwrights Group. Any errors that might be discovered, however, are my own responsibility.
Gender
- The first significant finding of the data: of the plays currently announced for the upcoming season, 70% were written by men, 22% were written by women, and 9% were devised by ensembles.
- In addition, there are five theaters producing no plays written by women: the Bay Theatre, Ford’s Theatre, Rep Stage, Round House, and the Shakespeare Theatre.
- Theaters with notably more balanced seasons include Arena Stage, Theater J, and Woolly Mammoth — though all three slightly favor plays written by men.
- The only theater with a genuinely balanced season consisting of more than three plays:Â Forum Theatre.
- Several smaller companies with one-, two-, or three-play seasons are also achieving gender balance as well.
Race
- Of the plays that have been announced to date for the upcoming season, 17% were written by playwrights of color.
- Theaters producing no plays by playwrights of color include: the Bay Theatre, Chesapeake Shakespeare Company, Shakespeare Theatre, and Signature Theatre.
- The only theaters with notably more balanced seasons: Forum Theatre and Woolly Mammoth, both of which are at 50%.
- Of note: several theaters that are likely to exceed that percentage — Gala Hispanic, for example — have not yet announced their seasons.
- According to the 2010 Census, the population of Washington, DC is 38.5% white, 61.5% people of color. (I was unable to find a regional demographic breakdown.)
Geography
- Of the plays that have been announced to date for the upcoming season, 15% were written by DC-area residents or devised by DC-based ensembles.
- Theaters (with four-play or larger seasons) exceeding that percentage include Forum Theatre, Round House, Synetic, Theater J, and Woolly Mammoth.
- A few smaller companies with one-, two-, and three-play seasons have exceeded that percentage as well.
- Theaters producing no plays written by DC-area playwrights include Arena Stage, Bay Theatre, Chesapeake Shakespeare Company, Ford’s Theatre, Rep Stage, Shakespeare Theatre, Signature Theatre, and Studio Theater.
Concluding Note
There are many different stories that can and (I hope) will be told about this analysis. I will be telling my own in the coming weeks (inspired by Polly Carl’s brilliant HowlRound essay), but only after others have had time to weigh in and a bit more data’s been gathered. In advance of that future blog post, though, I wanted to single out Theater J and Woolly Mammoth for a bit of praise, given that they’ve scored relatively highly in two of the above three analyses, and to level a heaping dose of kudos on Forum Theatre and its artistic director Michael Dove for having set the bar admirably high for 2012-13 and beyond. The community as a whole has a long way to go; if one season can be taken as any indication, however, Forum Theatre has already arrived.
Nice preliminary analysis, my friend. It does strike me that the next step gets more complicated, as you factor companies’ missions into the equation. The Shakespeare Theatre or Chesapeake Shakes, for instance, are inherently less likely to program plays by women writers, by DC-area writers or by non-white writers, because of their missions. Theatre J, it strikes me, is less likely to have a lot of racial diversity for much the same reason. Certainly Michael Dove and Forum deserve to be lauded for the breadth of their artistic reach, but as you know, this is complex stuff.
Yes, once the fuller picture becomes clearer thats where my questions will lay as well. Â I will also be curious how this compares to last year, to see if these numbers are higher or lower then before? Â How does mission play into the numbers? Â Got to give it up to theaters like Woolly and Theatre J and Forum for what I can generally see are advances in diversity numbers on all three of those planes.
Theater J is perhaps less likely, except it isn’t going to lack racial diversity in its upcoming season, because it has both a mission AND a basic ethical responsibility to the communities (theater practitioners, citizens of DC) its surrounded by, like all other theaters, and I believe they are aware of that dual mandate.
The “we only/mostly produce Shakespeare” defense doesn’t work for me, personally. I believe Shakes-centric companies should be treated more leniently, but not excused from all responsibility. There are plenty of ways in which they can meet those basic ethical responsibilities within their missions (and the theaters in DC may or may not be doing so, actually — I can’t say).
Still… this is an analysis of the season as a whole. I’m trying to ask the larger community to look at itself holistically, not to pick on any one theater. If we’re going to have Shakes-centric theaters (and we have SO MUCH SHAKESPEARE here in DC), then I think we collectively need to “make up the difference” elsewhere, and we’re just not doing that. Not at all.
I think it is right to look at the output of the region as a whole. However, I’ve got to be honest. If I were an AD, and I were told I had to “make up the difference” for a few Shakespeare companies in town, I would resent that.
But, if I reframed this from a sort of noblesse oblige mandate into an opportunity to serve an underserved market with my product, I may suddenly perk up and engage the topic. Of course, that sounds heretical and businesslike, so it probably needs different words. 🙂
Ha! How dare you use your MBA here?Â
You may be right. My language (from an excess of passion) may be difficult for some ADs to hear/sit with. And if I really do want things to change, perhaps I ought to think about framing differently.
Ultimately, I’m presuming that everyone (including the region’s ADs) wants a theater ecosystem that’s more balanced/fair/representative (and, really, to end institutionalized sexism/racism/etc.) So I’m assuming they’d all be willing to pitch in and fix things collectively. And that might be my greatest error.
 I hope at CSC we are doing our best to combat that lack of diversity in race/gender of the playwrights we produce by doing better in other areas. For example, of the four directors we’ve hired for this calendar year, three are women. We also try to use cross gender casting where it makes sense in the director’s work (ie. our Mercutio this summer is a woman). There’s no getting around the fact that the guy who wrote most of our plays is a white dude. Although, this summer we’re producing Pride and Prejudice. The novel was obviously written by a woman and the adaptation we’re using was written by a woman. Although, I should say that we’re not using her script because she’s a woman, but because it was the best script we found.
As in many other ways, CSC is (it seems to me) doing exactly what I wish other Shakes-centric theaters would do.
 Yeah, but a simplistic analysis of what they’re doing (i.e., one based on counting how many of the season’s works are written/directed by women and people of color) presents a very distorted view of what they’re doing, even as they make a major commitment to the city of Baltimore and its people. Check their facebook page.
This present enthusiasm obscures the fact that CSC – as one example – is drawing and has always drawn on of the most genuinely diverse audiences I’ve ever seen. Lines of age, class, gender, ethnicity, etc. – are crossed at every performance of every play simply by making the productions themselves more inviting, more open, while remaining solidly committed to the integrity of the works.
I have the impression (and have gathered no supporting statistics, nor do I expect to) but I have the impression that much theatre, including much theatre purporting to promote “diversity” is seen largely by audiences that aren’t that diverse with regard to education, income, and status as “theatre people” …
CSC has moved steadily toward diversifying its audience through clear and open presentation of great works in an atmosphere that encourages attendance by a broad audience.
Moreover, the company does its own studies – very detailed, and very mission-driven – to refine its understanding of who its real constituency is and might be going forward.
I’m very wary of quickly compiled numbers that tote up the score on a few dimensions that may prove to be superficially conceived when they’re examined closely – if they ever are.
You should know, Steve, that as anyone associated with CSC will attest, I’m a major fan. And I agree with your assessment of what they do and how they do it. Those are smart people doing excellent work.
These are not, however, quickly-compiled numbers, nor are the dimensions superficially conceived. They’re not meant to assess individual theaters, as you (and others) have misread them. They are meant to evaluate the season as a whole (and note statistical outliers). That is all.
This report from Variety came out at the beginning of this year stating that 82% of Broadway theatre-goers were Caucasian for the 2009-10 season. A lot of other interesting numbers. (see link below)
http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118048010
Granted, this is a look at Broadway, and eery city has a unique demographic, nonetheless, I think it credibly points to a national “trend.”
Interestingly, I’ve seen a statistic (though not its source, to be clear) indicating that 70% of all theater tickets everywhere are bought by women…
I agree — I think a great way to analyze Shakespeare companies and their diversity is to look at gender and race of directors and actors.
Analyzing last year’s numbers is, sadly, beyond my limited resources. (I’d be thrilled if someone else did it!) But I hope to keep this alive moving forward, year after year, to see how the community evolves.
Trying to avoid the mission question, though, because I think it’s misleading. Theaters have missions; the theater community as a whole has a basic ethical duty to the citizens of the region, and that’s what I’m trying to focus on…Â
Totally understand, and I might be up for going back and looking at how we have grown from last year…just have to find the time. Â
I totally understand trying to avoid the mission question. Â But since you single out particular theaters as not living up to the breakdown in each section or singling them out as bright spots, it makes sense others are going to start singling out theaters to either defend or attack based upon their views as well…and since the theatre community has a basic ethical duty to the citizens of the region, mission does tie into how a theatre does that. Â
I appreciate what you are trying to focus on…I think its really interesting…and I am a number guy, numbers speak a lot, but they don’t’ always tell the whole story or give the whole picture without context. Â As we have seen from every election in the past 50 years.
Still I am not trying to discount or bash anything you have done here…it takes  a lot of time and effort to even collect preliminary data and you and everyone else should truly be applauded for that work!
Thanks!
 I think it’s misleading if you are not factoring in mission, because mission should have a lot to do with how theatres program their seasons. I also think that if a company is programming to its mission, and its mission is largely long-dead white guys, it can work to cultivate diversity and inclusion in its hiring of designers and directors.Â
It’s disingenous to say that a Shakespeare-driven company can just program plays by writers such as Aphra Behn or Susn Centrelivre and all will be well; plays by women in that period were not as popular and because they are so little known, they present a real box office viability concern.
I’m not saying that I advocate letting them ‘off the hook’, just that there are legitimate mitigating factors which one must thoughtfully consider.
It’s disingenuous to say that a Shakespeare-driven company can just program
plays by writers such as Aphra Behn or Susan Centrelivre and all will be
well; however, Carlo Goldini is so well known, there’s no box office viability concern?
Is that what you’re arguing?
 Not at all.
So what is not being considered that should be then? Â
It’s not correct, for example, to say plays by women in the era of Behn and Centliver weren’t as popular. Existing evidence actually points to them being some of the most popular works of the era.Â
They were actively scrubbed from the cannon in later times, because inferior women had no business in letters. Women were thought too feeble minded by those who codified and taught the canon.Â
Is it acceptable to continue using Shakespeare as a shield to perpetuate that?
 Of course it isn’t. I didn’t say anything of the kind, and I believe I am fairly clearly on the record as a voice for greater representation of women writers, directors and designers in the theatre.
I’m saying it stands to reason that if one’s mission is ‘great classical theatre,’ then one should think more inclusively in one’s programming, but if one’s mission is ‘what makes Shakespeare great,’ then there is a plausible reason for having a season which is heavily tilted towards the plays written by one dead white guy.
(Tangentially, there are lots of plays from that period that were wildly popular at the time, and that don’t get produced now, and most of them were written by men.)
Gwydion and Greg (et al),
Very interesting data you have collected. I am sure you are familiar with Marsha Norman’s essay in American Theatre a few years ago on the subject of gender (in)equality among theaters regionally, and have added link here for those interested in her perspective:Â http://www.tcg.org/publications/at/nov09/women.cfm
I would add–although admittedly anecdotally–that although the you note, “the population of Washington, DC is 38.6 % white, 61.5% people of color,” the majority of theater-goers in any municipality are caucasian. Whether more people of color would go to the theatre if there were more plays by people of color, or whether theatre companies have a responsibility to represent a variety of perspectives to their all white audiences are just some of the thornier questions this raises for me.
In my limited research, I have seen a lot of writing from dramaturgs and playwrights lamenting the issues above but I have often wondered why no one has asked artistic directors why they are making the choices they make for their seasons. If that study is out there, please let me know–I would be very interested to see what the artistic directors have to say about season planning.
James Hesla
Doctoral Candidate
Theatre Studies
University of Maryland
Interesting preliminary analysis. On May 2, I suggested to @HowlRound that it may be good to see what portion of this season’s roles would be appropriate for more “senior†actors. I sometimes hear complaints from older actors that fewer roles are available for them. My new theater company (www.arcturustheater.com) will be showing three short Samuel Beckett plays in Jan-Feb 2013. The cast is overloaded with “older†male actors. We specifically picked “Embers†as one of the three plays because it has roles for two female actors. Arcturus Theater Company likes to believe it is in some ways following in Forum Theatre’s footsteps. Forum also debuted with a set of short Samuel Beckett plays; Arcturus was unaware of this until it had already purchased the license to show the plays.
After the Beckett adventure, Arcturus may present FULL BLOOM by Suzanne Bradbeer. Three of the five roles are for females.
It would be interesting to see if this pictures changes at all when incorporating directors, tech, and actors. One example springs to mind– Here in the Bay Area, we have African American Shakespeare Company. By your measure, they would have failed your diversity test, but their directors, designers, and actors are almost all African American.
I do think it’s important to look at the playwright issue on its own, and I understand that your resources are limited, but I think it might be a more useful, complete picture as far as understanding what stories are being told, and by whom if directors, tech, and actors are included.
Great start, though!Â
Â
Gwydion – I appreciate you doing this analysis but it seems you are making the argument that a female or playwright of color automatically represents and serves their demographic in their plays. I am not sure thats true, at least in regard to gender stereotypes.  I have seen many female playwrights write plays that do not pass the Bechtal test, plays where the majority of the characters are male and plays where the female characters conform to the worst of negative gender stereotypes.  I’m not sure if its due to the institutionalization of sexism in our society – these are stories and  we are accustomed to hearing – or a more cynical approach by playwrights to get their work produced.  What I am sure of is that producing a play written by a women does not necessarily mean that play is actually employing more female actors, telling a story that empowers women or serves women as a community.Â
You are absolutely right. And I said as much on the Facebook comment thread associated with this blog post. I will be expanding more on that subject (just a bit) in my follow-on posts…
blergh – didn’t see the facebook thread. Â I just find in interesting the different ways we approach this problem. Â As an actress I look at the number of roles for women. As a playwright you look at the demographics of who is writing. I’m sure directors out there could break things down by who is directing. Its the same problem, theater is failing certain under-represented communities who tend to proportionally make up a large part of the target audience, but we all focus on different entry points for that conversation and how it could possibly be fixed.Â
Pingback: Montgomery County Might Get Arena After All: Arts Roundup - Arts Desk
Pingback: District Line Daily: “Song 1″ Extended, CitiBike - City Desk
Pingback: Update: Boston’s Theatre Report Card « Meet Me on the Commons
Pingback: A Man Without a Conscience, or How to Stick it to ‘Big Gun’ | Looking Backwards Through a Microscope
Pingback: #TheSummit – Seven Initiatives | babelwright