What constitutes heritage is continually shifting. Heritage is not a fixed category but is continuously re-imagined and re-interpreted in the present (Graham, Ashworth & Tunbridge, 2000). Current debates, for example the political backlash to the National Trust’s research into historic links to slavery in the UK (Mitchell, 2020), highlight how “the stories and places of contemporary heritage are often the most overt examples of the contemporary politics of the past” (Nash & Graham, 1999). There is therefore a need to consider the implications of the ways in which the past is retold. In this paper, we examine a specific theatre as an incubator for bringing underprivileged narratives into the mainstream, to understand how theatre can be a mechanism through which heritage is made and how it can cultivate new ‘atmospherics of justice.’ Doing so will provide us with a better understanding of how challenges to local, national or global historical narratives, which have excluded or marginalised women, the working class, minority ethnic groups, indigenous people or the histories and cultures of the non-Western world can be made through the spaces of heritage (physical and material), the creators of heritage (theatre workers who select, shape and create the artistic heritage) and the interpreters of heritage (the audience without whom there is no heritage as well as critics and press). Through this theatrical ecosystem, heritage can become re-actualised and can account for current matters of social justice. We therefore follow Graham et al. (2000) in defining heritage as “about the political and economic structures of the present using the past as a resource” and see meaning making as complex and malleable.

Atmospherics of the Theatre
Paiva (2023) develops the notion of “atmospheric justice” by theorising urban atmospheres as a form of intangible heritage which must be created and transformed with local communities to ensure for a democratic, safe, healthy and liveable environment. We develop this idea further, drawing on the recent affective turn in consumer research, to consider the creation and maintenance of affective atmospheres (Preece, Rojas-Gaviria & Rodner, 2023) by theatres. We find a focus on atmospheric justice to be useful in unveiling the complex relations between humans and environments and shedding light on the social and environmental role of atmospheres as they are shared material and sensorial spaces rather than mere individual perceptions.
As Shyldkrot (2018: 147) points out, “atmospheres are an emerging subject of exploration. Yet when it comes to theatre and performance, though often used to describe various experiences, what atmospheres are remains rather hazy and the ways in which they might be generated are relatively unexplored.” While various affective atmospheres have been researched as part of consumer research and heritage studies, seldom have they focused on the raced, gendered, and classed dynamics of atmospherics. Put differently, although studies of atmospherics have accounted for some of the ways that expressions of identity and inequality can be implicated in the construction and experience of atmospheres, few have accounted for how intersecting forms of structural oppression shape their embodied nature. Accordingly, we bring the racial, gender, and class politics of both theatre and emotions into dialogue in considering the extent to which atmospherics of justice can be conjured in and through theatre.

Methods:
This paper is focused on a specific independent theatre based in London. It was chosen due to its reputation as a risk-taking venue which operates as an incubator of new talent (Tripney, 2023). The theatre has differentiated itself in providing creative support through paying relatively unproven artists to create new work, providing free rehearsal space, giving access to interest-free loans and focusing on issue-based theatre. So far, this strategic direction seems to be working as evidenced by two shows from 2022 having moved onto the West End (the highest level of commercial theatre in Europe).
Our data comes from a number of sources including: an online survey of audience members with 455 respondents; 97 short, informal interviews with audience members before and after shows, ethnographic observations of audiences at the theatre, 5 longer interviews with donors to the theatre, and critical discourse analysis of press releases, communications and critical reviews. Given the amount of data, we focused purposefully on three shows in the Spring 2023 season. Each of these shows was extremely different and developed by different companies but all were issue-based. While the data collection is now complete, we are still in the process of analysis to theorise how the spaces, creators and interpreters of heritage co-construct new atmospherics of justice.

Preliminary Findings:

Spaces of Heritage
We found that the theatre was characterised as a ‘safe’ space. The interior is described as ‘cozy’: “it’s a really good space to watch, it’s very comfortable, it’s got great sightlines, which is nice. It’s got a lovely little cafe. Nice and friendly. So, in terms of London venues, I can’t think of anywhere I’d rather go and see stuff. For me, it’s the right size because it feels intimate when you’re that close, so you can really get involved in it.” The theatre itself is situated, somewhat unexpectedly, in a corporate environment: “suddenly in this hugely, you know, concrete area, there’s this kind of small oasis. I think that people enjoy the intimacy of the space.” This protective space makes it somewhat more accessible than traditional cultural spaces “it’s not threatening... it’s a really chilled vibe. I mean, it’s just a black box space and yet for me it’s magical.” The physical space therefore allows for more risky theatre, artistic producers and audiences are given the opportunity to explore and imagine together: “you see things that you wouldn’t get on a really big West End stage.”

Creators of Heritage
The theatre operates as a hub for theatrical companies: “the vision was very bold and original. [Artistic Director] had a very particular creative vision.” While the team is only composed of five people, they are seen to be “approachable” and “supportive.” In fact, the theatre is well respected by peers: “it’s on my radar as a theatre maker. It’s quite an interesting space. It’s quite a generous space for theatre.” In supporting companies to take risks, the theatre is deemed to have “permanently changed the ecosystem for new and developing companies. So, more risky work that is new and fresh and led by younger artists from demographics that wouldn’t necessarily be able to have theatre from a very early age.” Again, this is positioned in contrast to the ‘safe’ and more commercial works seen on the West End i.e. classics, adaptations of pre-existing intellectual properly and star casts.

Interpreters of Heritage
The diversity represented in terms of the companies on stage trickles down to the audience: “and [accessibility is] something that really stands out about [theatre] specifically. And I think other theatres need to catch on to doing that and making sure that people have opportunities to either come to the theatre or be a part of the theatre. If you get those sort of people into theatre, you’re then gonna improve what you’re seeing in theatre.” This has been institutionally recognised with some of the plays being transitioned into the West End, one of these for example being described by a critic as a “powerful and deeply moving meditation on Black masculinity and Black life in Britain.” The theatre thus provides a communal shared experience which is “a mirror to the human psyche. I guess in a lot of political theatre you would learn something about, even if you don’t immediately recognise the characters on stage, you learn about those kind of characters. It makes us understand other people as well as ourselves.” As one audience member describes: “theatre is a great act of allyship. Because what you are doing is yielding the floor, giving a platform to someone else… So, if you can internalise this idea that voices on the stage are important, that are not your voice.”

Conclusion:
As the telling of stories, theatre is literally an embodiment of heritage. It forces the spectator to consider their own situatedness in relation to the work, how identity is constantly invented, both on stage and in the audience, in relation to the specific circumstances of the performance (Schmidt, 2010). Stage space is thus an important site of public discourse, where our cultural values are represented and often interrogated. As such, theatres construct important informal discursive arenas wherein social identities are continually constructed, deconstructed and reconstructed (Willems-Braun, 1994). In focusing on the ecosystem of a specific theatre, we find that by allowing different groups the right to claim and materialise their own atmospheric practices, heritage can be opened up to the participation of marginalised groups for new atmospherics of justice. We call for more attentiveness to the agenda of heritage work as a critical discourse. Heritage creation and preservation is by nature political and there are absent voices that need to be accounted for. Cultural policy makers should therefore not solely be concerned with preserving heritage but with the making of it.