Faith Jones

EK: It struck me that you recently wrote a manifesto for the next ten years of Yiddish theater, a description of what it can look like before we all move into the metaverse. What has the feedback to that article been like? Do you get the sense that creators are going to answer your call? 
FAITH JONES: Theater is such an expensive undertaking, and I think it often falls into the void. Artists have been extremely grateful for the attention we’ve paid to their work at the Digital Yiddish Theatre Project. Nobody has told me specifically that they plan to continue their online work or in what manner, but several have told me they will take some lessons forward however they end up performing. The drag troupe Shmutzik Shmates is committed to full accessibility, and that might very well mean that live shows also stream to allow for subtitles. International casts expressed their joy at working together across time zones, and I think the zing they got from that might carry it forward. There still needs to be more diversity in material and formats, which can take longer to really grapple with. Online life only reflects who we are. I read today that only 19 percent of Wikipedia biographies are of women and nonbinary folks, and yet are much more likely to be deleted for “non-notability” by the 90 percent of editors who are men. This is where we’re at in the Yiddish world too: still arguing if women are capable of writing a good play, for example. One thing that happens when there is a scarcity of opportunity, as when live performance suddenly dried up last year, is that people guard their territory all the more. So while there were great online productions that showcased a wider diversity in writers and casts, there are certainly people who are threatened by this, who feel the need to recenter themselves and to claim normative straight, cis, white, male leadership as a neutral voice of knowledge and authority within cultural spaces. Just as in synagogue movements, and in academia, the theater space needs to examine itself and be prepared to change. Otherwise it won’t matter if it’s online or in person, it won’t be a good representation of who we are and who we can be. 
EK: One other thing that I’ve noticed is that many people creating now are starting to incorporate an earlier generation of “Yiddish revival” creators (Adrienne Cooper, for example). Is this something that you’ve noticed? And if so, what do you think that means for the concept of a goldene keyt [golden chain of tradition]? 
FJ: We all need forebears, ancestors, and trailblazers. The loss of Adrienne long before her time gave us all a shock, but technology allows us to mourn the loss of her while also reanimating her presence. I think the idea of the goldene keyt is that it allows us to be part of something bigger than ourselves, but what younger artists are doing now—and this is so heartening and important—is being part of something bigger while also being their specific, precious selves. That’s why someone like Adrienne was so important, as a lesbian and as someone who made space for diverse groups within Yiddish. Just like everything else about Yiddish, the concept of the goldene keyt needs to be interpreted afresh by every generation.