Canvas-Covered Enlightenment: The ongoing story of the Chautauquas

By Geoff Giglierano, MHC Executive Director

Geoff Giglierano

Living history, especially as it is manifested through “first-person” interpretive presentations, has long been a personal and professional interest of mine.  Its theatrical elements and the way that it can—when done well—engage the imaginations and emotions of both the presenters and the audience is fascinating and exciting.  And yes, it’s also a lot of fun.   Consequently, I was very pleased when former MHC staff member (and current MHC volunteer) Barbara Gill invited me to accompany her to the recent Big River Chautuaqua in Bonne Terre, Missouri.

The Bonne Terre show is an independent Chautauqua.  Although it started in 1995 with assistance from the Missouri Humanities Council, it has continued in recent years on its own, with underwriting and support from the residents and businesses in that area.  In fact, that was what I found really intriguing about this particular event: the enthusiasm and dedication of the organizers and volunteers; the size and diversity of the audience; and the degree of involvement and support from the community.  I was very impressed by the overall event and enjoyed the evening, particularly because the audience was so wrapped up in the proceedings and everyone was having such a good time.

I would also like to point out that a big part of what struck me about the Bonne Terre Chautauqua and its ongoing success is that it seems to be doing quite well in an environment in which such events are not necessarily thriving.

Let me put that in context.  I know most our readers are familiar with the history of Chautauquas, but for those who aren’t, allow me to provide some background: from the 1870s to the 1920s, the Chautauqua movement brought traveling  shows that mixed education and entertainment to communities around the country.  Named after the northern New York community where the movement began, the Chautauquas were presented in tents, and featured speakers–usually on contemporary topics of interest—along with performances of music and/or dance.  They offered cultural and adult learning opportunities for the residents of smaller towns and rural villages in an era when mass communication was mostly limited to print media and the automobile had not yet changed that extent to which Americans could travel to access entertainment and education.

In the 1970s and 1980s, the idea of the Chautauqua was adopted by organizations such as the Arts and Humanities Council of North Dakota and institutions such as the Henry Ford Museum/Greenfield Village to augment their public education efforts.  The organizers of these “humanities Chautauquas” decided to create a new version of the tent shows as a means to present historical, literary and cultural content in an engaging, entertaining format.  The big difference, however, was that a key element of the new humanities Chautauquas was the use of first person interpretation—scholar/actors representing historical figures—as the featured speakers.  Instead of going to a Chatuaqua as our great grandparents did, to hear William Jennings Bryan or Mark Twain,  modern Chautauqua audiences at museums  and humanities council shows come to see scholar/actors performing “in character” as William Jennings Bryan or Mark Twain (and other personalities), usually followed by “out of character” discussion or a Q&A session.

While this type of programming can be highly effective, it does have its drawbacks.  Chautauquas can be expensive to produce, and require a great deal of work.  Doing a program in a tent involves certain inherent weather-related risks.  Organizers and volunteers often get “burned out” from the demands of putting this kind programming together year after year.  In some communities, support seems to be dropping off: certain organizers argue that “their audience is aging” and that younger people don’t have the time or interest to take part.  MHC, for example, which was once heavily involved in this type of programming, has in recent years largely backed away from involvement with Chautauquas. Nonetheless, the shows remain popular and successful in certain states and in certain communities like Bonne Terre.

Obviously, much depends on the venue, the quality of the performers, and the degree of community commitment to the program.  It would seem, however, that although the idea of the humanities Chautaquas is certainly not dead, it is perhaps at a crossroads.  Are we at a point where it is time for us to think about how organizations like MHC might reexamine the possibilities of the Chatuaqua concept?  Can we look at how aspects of the tent show could be adapted, refined or restructured to make more sense for venues where Chautauquas–as we have known them for the last 30 years or so–no longer seem to work?

Is there potential for “mini-Chautauquas” to be presented by organizations that cannot afford the time and resources required for a full-blown event?  What might be done in terms of developing “virtual Chautauquas (and what does the term “virtual Chautauqua even mean?).  Is our new “tent” located on Youtube instead of a grassy field?

As I said, I am very fond of the essential principles and interpretive approaches that underlie the idea of the humanities Chautuaqua.  I know that I am not alone in this and I do hope that we can have a conversation about where this type of programming might go and how it might evolve in Missouri.  Let me know what you think.

 Return to page one

Also in this issue