Care as a new labor policy

We are in a period of political resistance. Authoritarian tendencies are strengthening across Europe, and entrenched neoliberal capitalism worsens social inequality and planetary conditions for survival. In this atmosphere, demands for fairer and more dignified working conditions in theatre may seem marginal or even a luxury. But as I hinted in the previous text, theatre institutions can serve as an inspiring model for other sectors of the labor market. The future of working conditions will therefore not depend on grand revolutionary gestures or technocratic cosmetic adjustments. It requires the ability to combine systemic thinking with concrete everyday changes.

In the fight for social justice and decent working conditions, I observe two dominant opinion camps. On one side stands the strategy of “creating cracks” (John Holloway) in capitalist hegemony, which will be satisfied with small victories such as a sponsorship law or increased bonuses for a premiere. On the other side are visions of an ambitious leftist future of post-capitalism and a “world without work” (Nick Srnicek), which demand fundamental reforms of society as a whole. I understand the advocates of both strategies, but I also feel the effects of their (non)advocacy. Unfulfilled utopias tend to paralyze further efforts, and skepticism then spreads like a pandemic (we saw after the fiasco with unions at the turn of the millennium). Successful negotiations in HR or formal dialogue with the statutory representative can also seem like particular and technocratic management of dissatisfaction (we saw since 2000). Therefore, I decided to conclude my trilogy with a constructive analysis of current theatre trends that draw on ideas from both strategies. This analysis can serve as an effective cognitive scaffolding, allowing us collectively to expand our horizons. Several ideas require nothing more than a change in thinking and approach to our own work. And they can be practically implemented immediately! So come on, all theatre workers, employees, freelancers, and management, let’s try together to imagine and think about where it is currently possible to create a functional crack and where, conversely, the situation calls for a comprehensive redefinition of the problem. My cognitive scaffolding consists of four steps in total. 

I. Step: Start with Yourself

The European theatre ecosystem took its current form around the mid-19th century. Since then, however, the entire society has dynamically changed towards a neoliberal “love of work,” project-based principles, bureaucratization, and the expansion of various forms of sham contracting. Theatre institutions and unestablished collectives increasingly spend time preparing applications, doing administration, evaluating outputs, and all unpaid free time is invested in networking and seeking future project opportunities, making it an unsustainable work model. Time for creation shortens, accumulated functions increase, capacity for strategic planning diminishes, and roughly half of those in theatre suffer from burnout or mental health issues.1

In my opinion, today’s Slovak theatre must first create a “cognitive map” of its socio-economic system, i.e., a mental image of where within the vastness of the global economy it can place its actions. That is, not copying the business sector, not supporting hustle culture already at universities where students are taught skills to quickly turn themselves into walking brands, nor demanding a sponsorship law as a cure-all for multiple problems. It is important to broaden the perspective of one’s position by attempting to embed the philosophy of care, feminist theories, and care aesthetics into the DNA of our functioning. If theatre is to defend its existence and offer an alternative to capitalist hegemony, it must not only produce valuable productions but also organize new working relationships, distribute attention, reflect relationality and emotional labor, or defend ethical conditions of artistic creation.

This first step on the cognitive scaffolding is crucial, and there are several paths and means to it. On an individual level, it is, of course, important to set boundaries, avoid obligations beyond the scope of employment, practice accepting and giving feedback, and build quality relationships based on respect, trust, and mutual solidarity. Students at universities, especially in disciplines like acting, directing, or dramaturgy, might want their curricula to focus on “consent,” “coordination of intimacy,” and other aspects.

Especially in performing arts, self-optimization is perceived as a desirable commodity, shifting the burden of responsibility from the collective to the individual performer. Therefore, to prevent this step from sounding like a motivational manual, the institutional aspect is much more strategic. Theatres in Norway, Germany, or the Netherlands adopt various documents as part of their work regulations and all forms of contracts. Whether it’s an anti-discrimination clause or an Ethical Code, such documents are concrete and enforceable tools of support and protection, aimed at creating physically and psychologically safe environments. To achieve systematic prevention, theatres should monitor health absences and canceled performances to identify the most risky periods of the season. They can provide regular physiotherapy, vocal hygiene, or accessible psychological support instead of intervening only when burnout or collapse occurs. Equally important is training managers in communication, conflict prevention, and psychosocial risks. A kiss, hug, or sexual scene are not just questions of acting talent. Like fencing or stage falls, intimacy requires precise choreography, clear rules, and mutual trust. That’s why the position of intimacy coordinator is increasingly appearing in foreign theatres. Its role is not to censor productions but to create conditions where actors can focus on artistic performance without fear of crossing personal boundaries. Even theatres that cannot afford such a position can implement simple good practice rules. Discussions about intimate scenes should happen during casting, consent from the cast should be an ongoing process rather than a one-time signature, and intimate scenes should never be improvised. The way of communication is equally important. Directors and creative teams should describe specific stage actions, not emotions or actors’ bodies.

In some cases, such measures are initiated by enlightened management, in others by trade unions. However, the participatory dimension of the entire effort and the possibility for a broad group of actors to formulate such documents are crucial. The purpose of ethical codes or guidelines is not to create additional bureaucratic burdens but to articulate shared values, establish conflict resolution mechanisms, and regularly update them according to evolving practice.

II. Step: Redistribute Power

In recent years, the idea of horizontality and de-hierarchization within internal structures has gained ground in Western theatres. Of course, in unestablished groups, this is standard practice of collective existence, but as shown by the international conference of the European Theatre Convention in Gothenburg, Swedish theatres are highly power-driven, patriarchal, and representative. Out of more than 80 member theatres, only in April this year was it achieved that half are led by women. The second step on the scaffolding thus involves emphasizing radical internal democracy. It does not necessarily mean completely abolishing the position of the director or implementing direct democracy in all aspects of work. On the contrary, de-hierarchized theatre models can dangerously ignore subtler forms of dominance and fall into the paradox of invisible hierarchy. In the best case, a theatre adopts a prefigurative politics of power and materializes future utopian-anarchist impulses here and now (e.g., the Belgian NTGent), but in the worst case, it becomes so committed to de-hierarchization that this demand becomes a dogma, ignoring structural forces that hinder its realization. In practice, this looks like staff meeting online over every trivial matter. A more promising approach is to consider theatre as a public institution that, while having its internal order, can have multiple founders and managers, thus distributing power more horizontally. In a survey on working conditions in Slovak state theatres conducted between November 2025 and January 2026, I found that only 58.6% of the 29 valid responses were aware of changes to the work regulations, and only 34.5% had the opportunity to comment or co-create them (another 24.1% only partially). One way to systematically improve working conditions in theatres is to push management toward greater participation. As I showed in the first article of this series, unions have squandered their historical role, but in the fight for more horizontal institutions, they will be an indispensable player. Membership should choose a committee and presidency that reflect current working conditions in theatre, the breakdown of boundaries between work and private life, high staff turnover, and stagnating wages. Enlightened unions, for example, can insist that during public hearings for a new director, a union representative be part of the commission. Artistic leadership should also address questions like “Who remained unheard in the creative process?”, “Who bears emotional burden?”, “What conditions enable creative trust?”, or “What must remain invisible for the performance to even come into being?”. Caring for everyone thus extends beyond individual empathy to become a political and institutional practice.

III. Step: Transparency as Care

Care for the collective should not only be internal within the institution but also build bridges across all involved groups. A problem in Slovak theatre is frequent opacity, unclear practices regarding personal remuneration, and communication tensions. As the survey showed, only 46.7% of external collaborators (directors, actresses, visual artists) are bound by internal theatre rules, and performance evaluation is most often informal oral (65.5%) or not conducted at all (13.8%). Training in intervention and risk behavior, clearer feedback criteria, can be provided by an internal evaluator or a paid facilitator who can help impartially mediate key evaluations of theatrical activities.

An additional step toward greater transparency is a public debate on authors’ fees. From my own experience, negotiations over finances between theatres and external collaborators often happen behind closed doors. It’s unclear whether a senior director receives a higher fee than a younger colleague who, however, can produce an equally successful production and spend a comparable number of hours on it. One of the most practical tools helping organizations create a more honest and fair environment is a code of fair practice. In the Czech Republic, it is currently being prepared by the National Institute for Culture, working with an “apply and explain” approach. Organizations should publish fees paid, eliminate unpaid internships, ensure equal opportunities regardless of gender, age, or prestige, consider parental responsibilities, and establish mechanisms for submitting tips and regular feedback.

IV. Build Common Institutions

For the first three steps to make sense, one more prerequisite is needed. It’s not enough for individual theatres to care for their own staff, democratize internal processes, or implement more transparent rules. We need to learn how to organize the entire sector. The biggest problem in Slovak theatre is not a lack of talent or creativity but atomization. We operate side by side far more often than together. Each theatre develops its own methodologies, deals with similar labor issues, struggles with the same personnel problems, or seeks answers to psychosocial risks. Every change reappears as a local experiment, although it could become a shared experience for the entire sector. The result is that we spend a lot of energy rediscovering what has already been found.

That’s why it’s not enough to talk only about a culture of care. Care needs its infrastructure. It requires organizations that connect theatres, gather experiences, create professional standards, and can advocate for them when directors, management, or political groups change. If care relies solely on individual goodwill, it remains fragile. When it becomes part of shared institutions, it gains continuity. In Slovakia, there are organizations that could play a much more active role. The Slovak Theatre and Orchestra Association can be a platform not only for directors and state theatres but also a space for systematic discussion on working standards, health and safety, data sharing, and joint negotiations with the state. The newly formed Association of Independent Theatres highlights specific issues of the non-establishment sector but could more intensely connect the experiences of independent scene with brick-and-mortar theatres. And professional organizations like the Association of Theatre Dramaturgs demonstrate that collective professional identity can be more than just a representation of one profession; it can create space for expert reflection, education, ethical standards, and public advocacy for cultural work conditions. Similar professional platforms could gradually emerge for other theatre professions.

Slovak theatre, however, does not only lack stronger professional networks. It also lacks comprehensive data infrastructure. The database etheatre.sk collects information on productions, creative teams, and performances but does not provide a calendar of premieres, press releases, or information on job opportunities. There is also no coordination among theatres. Premieres are often scheduled without mutual communication, festivals compete over dates, and foreign guest performances happen more by chance than as part of a joint strategy. Each organization strives to survive on its own, although many problems could be addressed collectively. In times of limited public resources, culture can no longer afford the luxury of isolation.

Building shared infrastructure does not mean centralization or unification. On the contrary. Its goal is to create conditions for theatres to maintain their artistic autonomy while avoiding repeatedly solving the same systemic problems. Shared databases, common methodologies, research on working conditions, recommended minimum fees, training programs for managers, coordinated international partnerships, and regular inter-institutional meetings form an infrastructure that alone will not create better theatre. But it can create conditions for better theatre to emerge more easily.

In the introduction, I wrote about two strategies for social change – creating small cracks in the existing system and imagining a radically different future. Building shared infrastructure is where these two strategies meet. Every new database, data sharing, ethical standard, or collective professional initiative represents a small crack in the logic of isolation and competition. At the same time, they lay the groundwork for a completely different way of functioning in culture – one in which theatre not only cares about its audience or complains about political representation or budget cuts but also takes care of itself. The proposals that can help achieve this do not eliminate theatre from capitalism, but they promise liberation from neoliberalism and the establishment of a new balance of power. Progress toward a better future comes only with thoughtful reflection and conscious action. 

The author is a dramaturg and unionist

The text is part of the PERSPECTIVES project – a new brand for independent, constructive, and multiperspective journalism. The project is funded by the European Union. The expressed opinions and positions are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the European Union or the European Education and Culture Executive Agency (EACEA). The European Union or EACEA do not accept any responsibility for them.