Boundaries in close space: #MeToo in the performing arts and sports

Abstract

Few things have caused as much upheaval in Western societies in the last years as women’s publication of their experiences of sexual harassment and sexual violence under the hashtag #MeToo. In Iceland, the debate began in November 2017 when the first stories from women’s groups were made public. A total of 17 groups published stories that winter. Some groups called for changes in general terms, while others made clear and specific demands for action.

The purpose of our study was to map out the demands of women in #MeToo and try to evaluate the effectiveness of this social movement. In addition to formal change, we also wanted to try to capture the experience of informal change. We looked at sports and the performing arts by analysing available data and conducted interviews with women athletes, women in the performing arts and influential people connected to these two groups. We used a semi-structured interview framework and asked interviewees to tell us if anything had changed in their daily work after #MeToo, something that was not necessarily related to formal changes. The reason why we chose those two groups was the need to narrow the research, but it also appeared that these two groups have certain elements in common that could lead to similar experiences. This idea was confirmed in the interviews. It revealed that special circumstances and cultures exist in both the field of sports and the performing arts, which means that the stories of these groups differ from many others in terms of the seriousness of violence. What these groups also have in common is that the body is in the foreground and a great deal of intimacy is necessary, which means that it can be more difficult to set physical and social boundaries.

The main results are that there were significant formal changes in the sports movement, but less so in the performing arts. However, our interviewees agreed that there had been changes in behaviour and conduct within both groups; more was discussed than before and inappropriate treatment was discussed immediately. More specific results are that these two groups share a strong imbalance of power; individuals (athletes or actors) have a lot at stake and are in a difficult position with regard to powerful individuals, coaches, or directors. There is a sense of closeness; the workspace is small, and people know one another well. Part of learning, training, and working involves moving or stretching boundaries to reach goals, under the guidance of a director or a coach. In such settings it can be difficult to see and realise when boundary stretching develops into abuse of power. This was evident in the stories shared by both women in sports and in the performing arts.

It is important to name and make visible the system that creates power imbalance. Only when visible, can it be resisted. The dominant culture within the performing arts and the sports movement seems to have maintained silence and an imbalance of power. Within this culture, boundaries are blurred and often broken. Due to the closeness, colleagues will be like family and difficult matters such as sexual abuse are hard to discuss. To add to this, managers (directors and coaches) have almost totalitarian power over participants.

To explain how such a culture prevails and perpetuates, we used Erving Goffman’s (1959) theories on social interaction, Sara Ahmed’s (2010) writing on the killjoy, and epistemological injustice (Jackson, 2018). Goffman uses theatrical metaphors to explain the social rules of interaction, such as actors, play, role, and script. He points out that it seems to be important for all participants in the communication not to “rock the boat”; that in fact the perpetrator, the victim(s) and those who are in the role of spectators, are on the same team. All are concerned that there will be no disruption of the play. This is precisely the aspect that our participants mentioned as contributing to the non-commenting on unwelcome behaviour, neither on the part of the victim nor of those who witness it. It is, however, clear that everyone is not on the same team, because when a survivor reveals the violence, the group becomes hostile towards the teller (Jackson, 2018). The teller is the one breaking up the family (Ahmed, 2017) and disrupting the play. It can be said that sexual harassment and violence against women is written into the script (Ahmed, 2017). This social script makes it difficult for survivors to report violence, or to stop sexual harassment when it occurs. The reason is that when women set boundaries, they are said to be oversensitive, cannot take jokes, or praise (Ahmed, 2017). The victim is, therefore, the one who is made responsible for maintaining social stability by not speaking out – or else sabotaging her future within the institution (Ahmed, 2021). It is not the person who harasses or uses violence who is considered to interrupt the play. Built-in the script, seems to be room for harassment and violence. #MeToo managed to draw forward that the whole script needs to be rewritten and changed.