In the late 2020s there were many contributing factors to the ‘great turning’ event that happened in 2030. It’s hard to believe now, but there was a moment of hiatus – when people understood the science behind what was then most widely coined ‘climate change’ (a term obviously understating the implications) and yet did not act towards either mitigation or adaptation. There have been many books written since on the state of social paralysis like ‘Flying with the flock’ by Dr Indra Jahesowaki (published 2040), but that is not the subject of this article. I wish to detail an interesting, and under reported evolution in the organising structure of Scottish theatre which I believe may have been the marble that set a whole chain of events in action, and the repercussions were felt globally. At the very least it lubricated the extraordinary transformation over the following years.
 
In Scotland in the early and mid 2020s there was an oppressive regime over cultural organisations. Artists had to work under constraints that made it next to impossible to create meaningful work, preventing ‘flow’ from one project to the next. Often arts companies were disproportionally funded to do more administrative work than making shows. A few organisations who (no doubt in good faith) set out to offer artist development ‘opportunities’ kept a glimmer of hope alive, but they were a trap; in reality, the time artists spent applying for these far outweighed the time one lucky recipient would have to make some work – thus creating a detrimental overall effect (not to mention a collective case of cumulative rejection fatigue).
 
Gradually, audiences stopped seeking out live theatre altogether and began to forget that dance existed anywhere beyond the Saturday night reality TV shows focused on ballroom. Interestingly, audiences seemed to remain for comedy and live music, which have different funding structures. But anything with a political take, e.g. issue-based theatre with a cultural relevance, was sanitised and very nearly erased altogether. We had not only lost touch with the natural world, we also lost touch with our cultural heritage of rich political discourse provoked through theatre and similar gatherings.
 
There were several ways that this happened. Firstly, arts organisations were either funded by fossil fuel organisations and their associates or by the government, so there was an incentive to remain apolitical and steer clear from sensitive topics. Secondly several individuals positioned in seats of power pushed the agenda that theatre must be marketed to an international audience, despite the obvious excessive costs (of both money and carbon). Therefore, topics specifically relevant to a local audience were denied support. Finally, media outlets withdrew their support for reviewers to see fewer commercial shows or travel to see work, making it very difficult to reach audiences.
 
But, although hard to pin on just one artist, as so many were involved in the great ‘reimagining’, after publishing an article about it in her blog, one relatively unknown theatre maker Hazel Darwin-Clements, unexpectedly found herself amid a mini- revolution. She said “I was just back from touring the Highlands and Islands and I was holding two feelings at the same time; on one hand this amazing experience of the value of what we were doing, and how much it was appreciated and needed, and on the other hand this understanding that the regard (from society) towards what we were doing was diminishing and it was getting harder and harder, we needed to do something different." The project she had proposed was called ‘The Path Well-Travelled’. It set out a restructuring that would offer artists the opportunity to make relevant and meaningful work and bring it to audiences around the country, following in each others footsteps. There was to be a regularity to the offering which supported both the audiences and the artists to practice using their empathetic, thinking and emotional muscles routinely. The project supported plays to follow a tried and tested route, both physically from venue to venue, and through the show’s stages of production. I.e. removing the pitfalls along a path from development of an idea right through to complete production and tour. Unless something went very wrong there was an unobstructed support for a project throughout its lifespan, allowing artists to explore without continually trying to justify and ‘sell’ their half-baked idea.
 
The aim was not to create a few gems of world class theatre that opened for a short run in the central belt and which then toured China and the USA at great expense to the UK taxpayer. The aim was to re-enliven the place that strong theatrical voices held within the Scottish culture at large. Theatre would once more become a place where which political ideas were discussed, communities understood their own identities, faced their responsibilities and navigated unprecedented challenges. By travelling from town to village, island to inland, the stories were carried along with the artists who would pick up along the way ideas for the next play and it became a cyclical process.
 
For us today it may seem unthinkable that this was never not the case, but it could very easily have gone the other way. Even in the early stages of 'The Path Well Travelled’ project there were objections. Those who had been used to being the gatekeepers of “quality” in theatre could see power return to the artists and they pushed back on that. Artists who had not previously had freedom in their own creativity and had been conditioned to accept a subservient role in the ecosystem, were riddled with self-doubt and low confidence. But over time the project led to a cultural shift which created a healthy artistic ecosystem which supported political engagement, empathetic discourse and the ability for communities to gather around complicated changing narratives and landscapes. Other countries watched the way the arts in Scotland became exemplary, playing a pivotal role in the great turning which was to follow - and high numbers of people participating in a culture rich in artist - held discourse was seen as central to that. 

I have been being paid for my work in community climate action for a few years now and I have noticed a certain tension. The story goes like this: a well intentioned individual will set up a project and pour heart and soul into it. The project idea is good so they gather people around it and grow momentum. It seems to be going well but inevitably this project will become too much for the individual and here we reach the interesting part. There are a couple of common scenarios for what will happen next: 

1) The lead project person will burn out and try to reduce the scope of the project so they can look after their mental health. The project is their baby and they can't bear the idea of anyone else taking a lead on it, but they just don't have time/ capacity to let it grow anymore, it's become a burden so they try and keep operations small. You could argue there's nothing really wrong with this. Every little helps, keep things "grassroots" and small, everyone can just do a bit. The problem comes if you're blocking others from taking up the same space, when there is a gap to be filled. People come to you because they want to get involved, they have a similar interest/passion and then are turned away or have their enthusiasm zapped because everything is perceived as too much effort. 

2) The lead project person can continue in a leadership role, or pass it on, but the project needs to move to the next stage and be opened up to be help by a team. If this happens then that team will either be paid or unpaid - or, most likely, a mixture of both volunteers and paid roles. Here we have a different kind of problem. Volunteer roles can be a joy, people get as much as they give from taking on these roles. However volunteers, understandably, may not prioritise their volunteering role over their job, caring responsibilities, holidays and other responsibilities. In the case of volunteering for a board of directors or becoming a trustee, community projects have a responsibility to recruit a diverse group of people and they are likely to have other pressures and limited capacity. So then we have the paid workers being poorly supported to navigate a volatile funding situation in a challenging sector with increasing pressures from environmental breakdown and increased economic and societal pressures. Cue burnout, dropout and stagnant projects. 

I would argue that right now, the world needs robust community climate action projects that can be sustainable yet flexible and given the space to grow. This will require funding, support networks, skilled professionals and generous volunteers. But it will also require leadership which may involve standing back and letting a project grow. And it will involve paid people who can drive projects forward. 

Leaving community projects to be run by volunteers alone means that only those with the privilege of spare time and the confidence to come along are likely to get involved. If you have paid, skilled project workers then they have a responsibility to make sure the project reaches everyone, especially more vulnerable groups. They should have the capacity to think of different approaches to make the project more welcoming and reach beyond the same few faces. A job can also be passed on more easily that a volunteer role which has got out of hand. 

I realise that it's important to challenge a default growth mindset, and growing grassroots organisations too fast would go against the practice of de-growth. But I do think we need to step up community climate action. This is our resilience plan, our way of practicing hope, our community strengthening against a divisive regime. So perhaps we need to work on a way that we allow projects to be nurtured collectively and so those who plant the seed don't have to be the sole protector of what grows? And perhaps we need to value those who are choosing to grow their skills in this project nurturing and value the contribution they make? Let's take the ego out of it. Let's try and value the input that each person makes, but be wary of anything that sits on the shoulders of just one person.