Guidelines for Fostering Reparative Practices

Introducing the Guidelines

The Guidelines for Fostering Reparative Practices emerge from a series of creative collaborations initiated in the framework of the project Testing Ground: Reparative Practices for New Cultural Ecosystem. This two-year project, for which we choose the short name Repair, is an attempt to explore, test and produce “reparative approaches”. These approaches, open to surprising and unexpected outcomes – motivated by joy and pleasure rather than fear or anxiety – seek ways to address various systemic issues that burden relationships within culture and society, as well as relations to the environment and the future. The guidelines offer a selection of method proposals that stem from our exploration. We hope it can serve as an encouragement, an invitation to and for reparative practice.

Guidelines for Fostering Reparative Practices are a textual extension of all research and public elements of the Repair project. Designed in a (hopefully) concise format, the guidelines are intended for practical application across a variety of settings: from artistic processes to institutional contexts such as classrooms and various public programs.

The creation of this document was a collaborative effort involving all project partners and collaborators. However, main contributions to its development came from the researchers and collaborators of Kurziv (Zagreb). The guidelines synthesize and consolidate approaches tested within the project that proved adaptable and applicable across diverse contexts, bringing these insights together in a digital format. The textual contributions were based on the project findings, assembled and edited by Hana Sirovica.

You will notice that the guidelines are not formulated as strict instructions or prescriptive directives. Instead, they are conceived as a series of prompts for thought and action, aimed at engaging anyone interested in a step-by-step reflection on shared working processes and collaborative settings.

Or, to put it in more everyday terms: the purpose of the guideline-list is not to serve as a cookbook with recipes that can be used in any and every kitchen. Instead, it is more like a flexible and adaptable collection of thoughts and procedures, questions, and suggestions, whose ingredients can be incorporated into various recipes depending on the type of kitchen and the tools you have. We tried to make them adaptive and to various practices and collaborations, within culture and beyond. They are designed as a call to reparative action, meant to encourage reflection on how we work and what we can do within our means. 

The Guidelines for the Reparative Practices are also published in print form as part of The Booklet For Reparative Practices.

0. How to approach definitions?

0.1 Thinking about why approach is (not) a method is (not) a practice

If we consider the differences between approach, method, and practice, we shift our attention to how we do things, and this can itself be reparative. In our proposals for acting reparatively, you will find all three – sometimes overlapping, sometimes distinct. Here is a proposal for understanding these differences:

• reparative approach, as a stance or sentiment, is something we see as a general way of thinking-feeling things and relations. No approach can be “purely” reparative, as it is defined by emotion, and affects and emotions are a murky, messy area of existence – a trace of paranoia always lingers somewhere. 

• method, on the other hand, is a possible way of putting that approach into action. 
• practice can be seen as a use of method, an activity that envelops the approach via methods in time and space. 

0.1. Reparative ≠ emancipatory ≠ empowering

When considering the effects of our practices, it is important to recognize that “reparative” is not the same as “emancipatory”, though they can be overlapping. A practice or approach which is emancipatory does not necessarily have to be reparative, and vice-versa. Emancipation entails the reconfiguration of existing power structures and a shift in what is possible. Reparative approach, on the other hand, envisions a shift of the possibility itself. It is also important to consider empowerment, which assumes that someone who previously lacked power reclaims (or tries to reclaim) that power. While reparative practices can be emancipatory and empowering, this is not always the case. 

0.2. Reparative is in the feelings of the receiver

The reparative effect is highly context-specific; it emerges in a particular time and space, in relation to certain circumstances. Since it is an affective effect or a process, it is particularly important to emphasize that it also arises in relation to the wider structure of feelings of a given moment. A reparative process occurs in reception; it is not an intrinsic characteristic of any cultural or artistic practice. It arises through the effects, by sharing and doing with others or in relation to others.

0.3. Reparative = open to (emotional) inscription

Reparative effect (as a consequence of a practice, work, experience or a situation) is akin to a structure of experience open in a way that it doesn’t direct feelings but leaves cracks where feelings can be inscribed.

1. How to make a space of encounter reparative?

Conversation is the type of exchange most of us engage most frequently in everyday life. In our reparative research processes, it was also a practice that we engaged in most frequently by looking for methods. A reparative conversation is one that involves a shift of the participant’s initial positions, i.e. not the “preaching to the choir” kind of exchange. These kinds of conversations can occur in all kinds of collaborative processes, in formal, semi-formal and non-formal, just like in everyday life. 

1.1 Splitting the work (of making something happen) differently. This involves shifting the usual dynamics and positions. Some possible methods include agreeing on very specific tasks (the Secret Santa Method) or division of roles (i.e. roleplaying), limiting time (by setting a frame on a task and time it strictly), or generally trying to set clear limits on something that you usually don’t structure via limitation (such as the Speaking in questions Method). 

1.2. Speaking in questions. This method can be described as conversational choreography, based on the principle of speaking exclusively in questions. In order to begin, one of the participants needs to kick the exercise off with a question, and each response to a must take the form of a new question, creating a dialogue (or a polylogue) built through questions. We incorporated this exercise into several of our reparative processes at various stages, and it always led us to something intriguing and unexpected.¹

1.2.1. Reducing. Methods that reduce the usual flows of communication, such as roleplay or strictly timing experiences, are a great way to intervene in established hierarchies and the ways we distribute workload and responsibility-load within a group, especially in collectives where there is no explicit hierarchy or division of responsibilities. The absence of a clear hierarchy can be a great thing, but even in seemingly non-hierarchical environments, implicit power dynamics still exist. This can easily lead to situations where responsibilities are not distributed fairly. As a way of resetting and flipping the dynamics of “business as usual” upside down or inside out, this approach can shift the perspectives and change the positions of group members, thereby acting reparatively. Reductions can also be useful for temporary or/and new communities, as clearly defined parameters of engagement at the very least alleviate the tension of getting to know each other, and, in the best-case scenario, create fun and joyful experiences.

1.2.2. The Secret Santa Method. In Secret Santa, participants draw names to randomly assign a person to whom they will anonymously give a gift; this adds an element of surprise, as the gift receiver doesn’t know the identity of their Secret Santa until the gift is revealed. Instead of literal gifts, this method (that can be easily put to action via an online randomizer) can be used in various research or sharing situations to assign each other different tasks, such as questions to answer, materials to read or watch, or any other kind of phenomena to familiarize with. In regard to “business as usual”, production-oriented situations, it can be used as a way to intervene in the division of work, a method following the approach of reduction described above. It’s also a way of coping with decision fatigue, a state of being overwhelmed with the amount of choices and responsibilities one has to make and take, which is such a frequent issue in creative processes.

1.2.3. Thinking-making safe(r) and brave spaces. In order for reparative conversation to happen, certain kinds of sharing spaces need to be nourished. In this, feminism as theory and practice shows the way. However, no space is intrinsically or permanently safe, which is why it might be more helpful to think in terms of creating safer spaces rather than safe spaces. One of the methods to achieve safe(r) space as part of a collaboration is to carry out a series of “check-ins” with one’s own feelings and needs, as well as on and checking-in with feelings and needs of others, and the dynamics at play. On the other hand, “brave space” goes beyond the safe space concept, as making a space brave means making that space readily available to expressions of dissonance and disagreement, even when it’s difficult and challenging. In order for both safer and brave spaces to be created, it can take a lot of time. For this, achieving duration and continuity is crucial, but also very difficult to maintain.²

1.2.4. Enduring and persisting. In addition to their importance for safe(r) and brave spaces, practicing duration and continuity is a viable form of resistance to project-driven, goal-oriented ways of functioning of late capitalism. Challenging as it is to sustain these kinds of time-wise persistence, engaging in (from the perspective of capital) non-productive activities can bring meaningful change, move us and those we share these spaces with in profound ways. Making a conversation, i. e. a meeting around a certain topic which is not a production-oriented obligation, last very long, longer than neccessary, is also a possible method of persistence in duration to try out. 

1.2.5. Evading diversion. Beware! In discussions, especially when they revolve around opposing positions, questioning can be used as a method to undermine the “other” side, aimed at exhausting rather than genuinely engaging with someone. This is the case with “whataboutism” and the “debate” tactics frequently employed by alt-right and other trolls, designed to divert attention from the issue at hand by pointing to unrelated matters. It creates a mockery of conversation: something that appears to be dialogue but is, in reality, a calculated maneuver. In such instances, paranoia is warranted, for tactics like question-bombing diminish the possibility of actual exchange. Therefore, as a form of self-care and to conserve energy for future reparative efforts, evasion in the face of diversion tactics is highly recommended.

2. How to imagine and situate?

2.1. Seeking joy, insisting on pleasure. Both in professional and personal life, and everywhere in between.

2.2. Embracing failure, accepting the ordinary. This method is an antidote to the pressures by conventional ideas of success, and the overwhelming demands that we must be and do “extra”, constantly hyperproducing. The art world takes these demands even further than many other fields of human activity, as it has long upheld and nurtured the cult of genius and authorship – domains marked by exceptionalism. Not only is the pressure directed towards (over)producing constantly, it’s also directed towards doing it brilliantly. In culture, we are always expected to create something new, groundbreaking, and never-before-seen. In such an environment, embracing failure and embracing the ordinary can be reparative.

2.4. Embracing silliness. For humor carries great reparative potential.

2.5. Go (pre)figure! 

We operate within the realm of existing possibilities, constrained by current circumstances. Yet, prefiguration as an approach strives to imagine and embody now the values and conditions we hope to see realized in the future. The politics of prefiguration have been, and continue to be, practiced by activists, movements, and communities fighting for a future where the conditions of life, work, and production are improved for everyone, not just a select few. As for “go figure”, interestingly, Merriam-Webster defines it as an expression for something surprising or hard to understand, while Cambridge Dictionary adds connotations “strange or stupid”. This underlines the expression’s inherent unpredictability – an element of surprise or a twist that defies expectations. When this element of surprise is joined with the prefigurative orientation towards the future that starts now, could it, then, be considered a reparative method? Go (pre)figure!

2.6. Unlearning. Explanations of unlearning often mention forgetting as a part of the process. The process of unlearning involves “forgetting” harmful patterns, those adopted through the experiences with various oppressive or exclusionary tendencies. Unlearning also involves being prepared to suspend disbelief, or to adopt naïvety. An effort to unlearn is deeply intertwined with the possibility of opening oneself to being surprised or startled, and it’s precisely where its reparative potential lies.

2.6.1. Reshaping Memory. The path of remembering is just as important as the forgetting. Working with memory represents another space for reparative action and situating. Formal, institutionalized memory reflects dominant historical aspirations to preserve a specific narrative – one possible version – while erasing, neglecting, suppressing, or silencing a multitude of “what might have beens” that shaped the possibilities of a past moment. Some of these lost possibilities could offer valuable lessons today. Approaches to archives, such as docufiction, which aim to fill gaps (or highlight them) through imagination and speculation, can sometimes generate this type of movement, reclaiming possibilities lost to History. Working to remember can serve as a way of revealing forgotten possibilities – potentials that could show us directions for imagination and action in the present and future.

2.6.2. Reusing and recycling, responsibly.

Resistance to the imperative to always create something new and never before seen, also involves becoming aware of one’s surroundings and recognizing others who act or think in similar ways. Thinking about what has been created before and what’s being created around us now, and giving credit to others – and thinking about where it is “due” – can be reparative in itself, as it directs us toward others and encourages us to think-feel our environments. Reusing and recycling in this way fosters a knowledge-seeking community, rather than directing references and credits being used for personal gain or to meet competitive demands, as is often the case in academic citation practices.

2.7. Remembering that you have a body.  

The body is why we are alive. It is also a primary source of production, yet we often forget or suppress awareness of our embodiment – for this is what we are thought to do, one more thing that needs unlearning. This suppression is especially relevant to cultural production and intellectual work, where ignoring or neglecting the body has become habitual (with exception of performing arts). Simply by remembering that the body is present, we can not only feel better but also act in reparative ways. Artistic and cultural practices that focus on non-human and more-than-human environments encourage attunement with the world around us, acknowledging that we are not “external” to the world. Remembering that we have a body enables us to engage in meaningful conversations with other humans, non-human beings and forms of life. These interactions (both with the body and with other human and more-than-human bodies) require time, patience, attention, and methods of attunement. To end, we will share one of them.

2.7.1. Change of Pace³

As you walk, change the pace of your steps and observe how the space changes with them.

~ Choose a point on the horizon, fix your eyes on it and go to it as quickly as possible without paying attention to anything else around you.

~ Then, walk at your normal, easy pace. Try to collect as much information as possible about what is happening around you – map the space with your sight, your hearing and your touch without focusing on any particular detail for too long.

~ Slow your gait by half. Focus on the movement around you, select some moving elements, and follow them with your gaze or with your ear for as long as possible.

~ Slow your gait by half again. Try to observe what happens in close proximity to your body; you can imagine the radius of your attention span (e.g. one meter away from you).

~ Slow down again and close your eyes. Focus on how your body moves, how it reacts to the surface you step on and how it maintains your balance.