title: The reception of Grabbe’s Hannibal in the German theatre

authors: Sutherland, Margaret Anne

abstract: This study has undertaken to investigate the reception of Christian Dietrich Grabbe’s tragedy, Hannibal, in the German theatre. Before the main topic could be approached, an outline needed to be provided in an expositional part of the genesis of the drama and the history of its publication; for the appearance and publication of the text marks the beginning of any reception process.
The thesis is divided into two major parts. The first deals with the adaptations of the drama, prepared with theatrical portrayal in mind. These act as a bridge between the original text and its realization in the theatre. The second part is devoted to the productions as seen mainly through the eyes of theatre critics who are able to give some permanence to a transitory experience by capturing it in writing.
Between 1901 and 1940, there were five printed adaptations of Hannibal: those of Spielmann (1901), Kilian (1919), Jessner (1926), Martin (1940), and Haas (1940). The adaptors themselves were recipients and created examples of productive reception which were able to be passed on to the public by way of the theatre. The adaptors all encountered similar problems when confronted with Grabbe’s original, and to make the drama suitable for the stage, the structure had to be modified, lists of dramatis personae given and stage directions altered or added. A sixth adaptation was that of Brecht who began to prepare it for the Deutsches Theater, Berlin. It remained a fragment but shows that he wished to diverge from, rather than conform to, the original. The adaptations performed were those of Kilian, Jessner, Martin, and Haas. 
The productions of Hannibal spanned the period from 1916 till 1958, after which time the tragedy seems to have been ignored by the German theatre. The main aim of this part is to make use of critiques as a method of obtaining an impression of individual presentations and any special tendencies in interpretation and particular dramaturgical problems or trends. Apart from the 1916 portrayal, the productions have been arranged into three groups: those from 1918 to 1932, 1933 to 1945, and 1946 to the present day. From each group, two major productions have been regarded closely. Further productions have been dealt with more briefly at the end of each section.
Receptive comments reveal that the presentations were usually understood in the context of the political, ideological, or philosophical climate of the time. The work placed enormous strains on the theatre. Innovative technological solutions had to be found to ensure fluency of action, and an outstanding actor was required for the title hero who was played by some of the greatest actors on the German stage: Steinrueck, Krauss, George, Meinecke, Schieske, and Zeidler.
Whilst the drama was played on a number of occasions during the 1920s, it experienced its heyday in the theatre in the Nazi period and appeared at National Socialist festivals held in honour of the dramatist. Grabbe was repudiated in the years immediately after the war and the revival of interest in Hannibal in the 1950s was shown to be limited and apparently short-lived. 
To give a visual aid to the reader, I have included documentation at the end of my thesis in the form of a table of all productions, a play-bill for each of the six major ones, and photos of stage settings and leading and supporting actors.

text: The reception of Grabbe’s Hannibal in the German theatre This study has undertaken to investigate the reception of Christian Dietrich Grabbe’s tragedy, Hannibal, in the German theatre. Before the main topic could be approached, an outline needed to be provided in an expositional part of the genesis of the drama and the history of its publication; for the appearance and publication of the text marks the beginning of any reception process.
The thesis is divided into two major parts. The first deals with the adaptations of the drama, prepared with theatrical portrayal in mind. These act as a bridge between the original text and its realization in the theatre. The second part is devoted to the productions as seen mainly through the eyes of theatre critics who are able to give some permanence to a transitory experience by capturing it in writing.
Between 1901 and 1940, there were five printed adaptations of Hannibal: those of Spielmann (1901), Kilian (1919), Jessner (1926), Martin (1940), and Haas (1940). The adaptors themselves were recipients and created examples of productive reception which were able to be passed on to the public by way of the theatre. The adaptors all encountered similar problems when confronted with Grabbe’s original, and to make the drama suitable for the stage, the structure had to be modified, lists of dramatis personae given and stage directions altered or added. A sixth adaptation was that of Brecht who began to prepare it for the Deutsches Theater, Berlin. It remained a fragment but shows that he wished to diverge from, rather than conform to, the original. The adaptations performed were those of Kilian, Jessner, Martin, and Haas. 
The productions of Hannibal spanned the period from 1916 till 1958, after which time the tragedy seems to have been ignored by the German theatre. The main aim of this part is to make use of critiques as a method of obtaining an impression of individual presentations and any special tendencies in interpretation and particular dramaturgical problems or trends. Apart from the 1916 portrayal, the productions have been arranged into three groups: those from 1918 to 1932, 1933 to 1945, and 1946 to the present day. From each group, two major productions have been regarded closely. Further productions have been dealt with more briefly at the end of each section.
Receptive comments reveal that the presentations were usually understood in the context of the political, ideological, or philosophical climate of the time. The work placed enormous strains on the theatre. Innovative technological solutions had to be found to ensure fluency of action, and an outstanding actor was required for the title hero who was played by some of the greatest actors on the German stage: Steinrueck, Krauss, George, Meinecke, Schieske, and Zeidler.
Whilst the drama was played on a number of occasions during the 1920s, it experienced its heyday in the theatre in the Nazi period and appeared at National Socialist festivals held in honour of the dramatist. Grabbe was repudiated in the years immediately after the war and the revival of interest in Hannibal in the 1950s was shown to be limited and apparently short-lived. 
To give a visual aid to the reader, I have included documentation at the end of my thesis in the form of a table of all productions, a play-bill for each of the six major ones, and photos of stage settings and leading and supporting actors.

year: 1980

title: Theoretical models for an intersectional and inclusive citizens’ assembly

authors: Roy, Rituparna

abstract: The aim of the EU-CIEMBLY project is to create a model for EU citizens’ assemblies that maximises intersectional equality, inclusion, and deliberation. To that goal, the researchers mapped the landscape of the relevant scholarship in Deliverable 2.1. Building on that foundation, Deliverable 2.2 initiated the development of theoretical and normative frameworks for fostering intersectional equality, inclusion, and deliberation within citizens’ assemblies. This Deliverable extends the theoretical work of Deliverable 2.2 by proposing innovative models for citizens’ assemblies. Adopting a 'blue sky' approach, it moves beyond practical constraints of resources and capacity to explore creative and conceptual design features, pushing the boundaries of what is possible in the pursuit of truly inclusive and deliberative democratic practices. 

Drawing from political theory, sociology, representational theory, and critical theory on democratic innovations, Deliverable 2.3 proposes different models and design features for citizens’ assemblies that enhance inclusiveness for marginalised groups and PMIMG (people belonging to multiple, intersecting, marginalised groups; see Deliverable 2.2, Appendix I). The models in this Deliverable integrate intersectionality in a way that allows for a focus on a variety of interacting social positions, forces, factors, and power structures that create the barriers experienced by marginalised groups and PMIMG when participating in citizens’ assemblies. By focusing on these dynamics, the models seek to propose design features to enhance intersectional equality, inclusion, and deliberation (as per the project’s analytical framework, presented in Deliverable 2.2). 

The Deliverable consists of six theoretical models. Model 1: Descriptive Representation, presents a range of options through the lens of including PMIMG in the participant body and bureaucracy involved in a citizens’ assembly. Model 2: Discursive Representation, emphasises inclusion of diverse knowledge, perspectives and discourses through various mechanisms by moving beyond the sole focus on identity-based representation of PMIMG. Model 3: Subaltern Counterpublics, acknowledges the systemic marginalisation of certain groups and advocates by providing safe, dedicated spaces for PMIMG to articulate their perspectives without the fear of being pressured by dominant narratives. Model 4: Power Sharing, focuses on the ways in which an intersectional citizens’ assembly could address power imbalances through popular control, governance, and community-driven design. Model 5: Agonistic Pluralism, provides a number of design choices around facilitating conflicting opinions in citizens’ assemblies, to draw out the views of PMIMG and minority perspectives. Finally, Model 6: Relationality and Interdependence, discusses a range of design choices that would complement many of the models through emphasising commonalities, relationships, and bonding between participants, their communities, and other parts of the broader society, such as nonhuman animals or landmarks.  

The exploration of the models is followed by a section that covers alternative design choices or ‘additional considerations’, including using an additive model for sampling, and reconsidering the traditional strive for consensus in citizens’ assemblies, and the subsequent implications for intersectionality. Lastly, the Deliverable sets out the scope for future work in the project. In particular, the section flags considerations of strengths based versus deficit framing, essentialism versus external inclusion, balancing perspectives, and considerations of legitimacy when altering the conventional sampling model. The section also includes broader points around the need for a deliberative system approach and discusses the potential to create an overarching politico-philosophical framework about the project's conceptualisations of democracy, as well as considerations for the creation of policy recommendations. These are important points to consider as the project heads into more practical considerations under Work Package 3. 

The Deliverable concludes with an overall options table (Table 7), which maps all the potential starting points for design choices by model and according to each stage of the citizens’ assembly (i.e., governance, organisation, and management; sampling and recruitment; and facilitation and deliberation). The options explored in this deliverable thus provide a beginning point, based on theory and drawing on the analytical framework from Deliverable 2.2, in order to begin designing the citizens’ assembly pilots. These models are theoretical in nature, so they were designed to help conceive ideas and therefore do not represent an off-the-shelf solution for later work. Instead, they represent a starting point for later work packages, and aim to provide novel ideas for both the EU-CIEMBLY project and others seeking to implement intersectionality in deliberative designs.

text: Theoretical models for an intersectional and inclusive citizens’ assembly The aim of the EU-CIEMBLY project is to create a model for EU citizens’ assemblies that maximises intersectional equality, inclusion, and deliberation. To that goal, the researchers mapped the landscape of the relevant scholarship in Deliverable 2.1. Building on that foundation, Deliverable 2.2 initiated the development of theoretical and normative frameworks for fostering intersectional equality, inclusion, and deliberation within citizens’ assemblies. This Deliverable extends the theoretical work of Deliverable 2.2 by proposing innovative models for citizens’ assemblies. Adopting a 'blue sky' approach, it moves beyond practical constraints of resources and capacity to explore creative and conceptual design features, pushing the boundaries of what is possible in the pursuit of truly inclusive and deliberative democratic practices. 

Drawing from political theory, sociology, representational theory, and critical theory on democratic innovations, Deliverable 2.3 proposes different models and design features for citizens’ assemblies that enhance inclusiveness for marginalised groups and PMIMG (people belonging to multiple, intersecting, marginalised groups; see Deliverable 2.2, Appendix I). The models in this Deliverable integrate intersectionality in a way that allows for a focus on a variety of interacting social positions, forces, factors, and power structures that create the barriers experienced by marginalised groups and PMIMG when participating in citizens’ assemblies. By focusing on these dynamics, the models seek to propose design features to enhance intersectional equality, inclusion, and deliberation (as per the project’s analytical framework, presented in Deliverable 2.2). 

The Deliverable consists of six theoretical models. Model 1: Descriptive Representation, presents a range of options through the lens of including PMIMG in the participant body and bureaucracy involved in a citizens’ assembly. Model 2: Discursive Representation, emphasises inclusion of diverse knowledge, perspectives and discourses through various mechanisms by moving beyond the sole focus on identity-based representation of PMIMG. Model 3: Subaltern Counterpublics, acknowledges the systemic marginalisation of certain groups and advocates by providing safe, dedicated spaces for PMIMG to articulate their perspectives without the fear of being pressured by dominant narratives. Model 4: Power Sharing, focuses on the ways in which an intersectional citizens’ assembly could address power imbalances through popular control, governance, and community-driven design. Model 5: Agonistic Pluralism, provides a number of design choices around facilitating conflicting opinions in citizens’ assemblies, to draw out the views of PMIMG and minority perspectives. Finally, Model 6: Relationality and Interdependence, discusses a range of design choices that would complement many of the models through emphasising commonalities, relationships, and bonding between participants, their communities, and other parts of the broader society, such as nonhuman animals or landmarks.  

The exploration of the models is followed by a section that covers alternative design choices or ‘additional considerations’, including using an additive model for sampling, and reconsidering the traditional strive for consensus in citizens’ assemblies, and the subsequent implications for intersectionality. Lastly, the Deliverable sets out the scope for future work in the project. In particular, the section flags considerations of strengths based versus deficit framing, essentialism versus external inclusion, balancing perspectives, and considerations of legitimacy when altering the conventional sampling model. The section also includes broader points around the need for a deliberative system approach and discusses the potential to create an overarching politico-philosophical framework about the project's conceptualisations of democracy, as well as considerations for the creation of policy recommendations. These are important points to consider as the project heads into more practical considerations under Work Package 3. 

The Deliverable concludes with an overall options table (Table 7), which maps all the potential starting points for design choices by model and according to each stage of the citizens’ assembly (i.e., governance, organisation, and management; sampling and recruitment; and facilitation and deliberation). The options explored in this deliverable thus provide a beginning point, based on theory and drawing on the analytical framework from Deliverable 2.2, in order to begin designing the citizens’ assembly pilots. These models are theoretical in nature, so they were designed to help conceive ideas and therefore do not represent an off-the-shelf solution for later work. Instead, they represent a starting point for later work packages, and aim to provide novel ideas for both the EU-CIEMBLY project and others seeking to implement intersectionality in deliberative designs.

year: 2024

title: Evaluation of the whanau carers training programme delivered by LIFE Unlimited

authors: Ashwell, Allanah

subjects: Maori

abstract: In response to the needs of Maori informal carers, a training programme was developed for whanau carers in the Waikato region.  It was delivered by LIFE Unlimited.  It is a unique training programme in that it is community driven and focuses on informal caregivers who are Maori.  The overarching aim of the whanau carers training programme is to provide increased training and support of informal carers.  This report aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of the whanau carers training programme, including: the unique nature of the programme, the critical success factors, the barriers to success if any, and suggested improvements.  The report concludes the programme has had a positive and definite impact upon the whanau carers.  The evaluation team observed that the overall programme works very well and fulfils its stated obligations to the Ministry of Health.  The programmes are delivered well, and are well received by the client group.

text: Evaluation of the whanau carers training programme delivered by LIFE Unlimited In response to the needs of Maori informal carers, a training programme was developed for whanau carers in the Waikato region.  It was delivered by LIFE Unlimited.  It is a unique training programme in that it is community driven and focuses on informal caregivers who are Maori.  The overarching aim of the whanau carers training programme is to provide increased training and support of informal carers.  This report aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of the whanau carers training programme, including: the unique nature of the programme, the critical success factors, the barriers to success if any, and suggested improvements.  The report concludes the programme has had a positive and definite impact upon the whanau carers.  The evaluation team observed that the overall programme works very well and fulfils its stated obligations to the Ministry of Health.  The programmes are delivered well, and are well received by the client group.

year: 2004-02