'Embodied Voice' and Inclusivity: Ableism and Theatre Voice Training

The idea that voice is “embodied,” literally in and of the body, is a key principle in training actors’ voices and can be found in some of the earliest voice training manuals in UK voice pedagogy (Aiken, 1910; Fogerty, 1930; Thurburn 1939). Master voice trainer, Kristin Linklater, in her keynote address given at the 2019 Pan European Voice Conference in Copenhagen offered the term “embodied voice” to describe her belief that, “. . . voice is universal- all humans have lungs, diaphragm, resonators, vocal folds. . .”. (Linklater, 2019). The “embodied voice,” through its emphasis on universal, “human” anatomy and physiology, is characterized as the common denominator for the transference of skills between bodies/voices (Aiken 1900: 2-3; Berry 1973: 14; Martin 1991: 37). As such, the assumed commonality of bodily structures, muscle function and other ‘materials’ of voice help “embodied voice” practice cross cultures and discipline-specific contexts (Rodenburg 1992: 268). ‘Universal’ embodied voice suggests an inclusive pedagogy, but I argue it does so through an over-reliance on body as a stable site for learning. (McAllister-Viel 2007: 99). One aim of this chapter is to open conversations about how “embodied voice” as a term and the ideas underpinning this term inhibit access to training at the same time it positions itself as universally assessable through a narrow understanding of “the” body based on anatomy and physiology. By offering a sustained critique of current conservatoire voice practice, the goal is to (re)consider a key principle of mainstream contemporary voice training and the medical model by which voice practice is often transmitted.