Autotheory and What the Constitution Means to Me

Autotheory and What the Constitution Means to Me

Autotheory and Heidi Schreck’s What the Constitution Means to Me:
“Why not me?” becomes “Why not all of us?”

A reflection on the burgeoning genre as I dramaturge theatre KAPOW’s upcoming production.

By Claire Soleil Gardner

Heidi Schreck’s What the Constitution Means to Me challenges form, genre, and convention so thoroughly that it is hard to explain without acknowledging a new genre of contemporary playwriting, autotheory. Autotheory is the blending of memory based narrative and political or philosophical theory. Schreck uses both memory and political theory onstage to bring her audience’s attention to the Constitution, something few of us in the 21st century bother with anymore. Why bother with reading that dry hundred-year-old document that has lost its meaning and power when there are screens and an attention economy begging for our eyes? What the Constitution Means to Me compels us to care about the document. When What the Constitution Means to Me had its off-Broadway run in 2018, and Broadway run in 2019, the attention economy was already in full swing. However, since the 2018 premiere of the play, the battle for attention and new technology has vastly accelerated. What’s different between 2018-19 to now? Only a global pandemic that made society completely reliant on new technology, the murder of George Floyd, the Black Lives Matter movement, the 2021 insurrection at the capital, and AI technology’s rapid integration into everyday life- need I say more? Throughout this period of accelerated changes and disruptions in America, Schreck’s play remains relevant through its ageless questions about nationhood, personhood, and where those questions lie in America’s founding document. What the Constitution Means to Me’s continued relevance has much to do with its burgeoning genre, autotheory. 

According to Robyn Wiegman, a professor of literature at Duke University, there is no critical consensus on the meaning of the term autotheory; it is a new and nebulous literary concept, popularized by poet and critic Maggie Nelson in her 2015 book The Argonauts. In an interview with The Interval, Schreck stated that “I like autotheories a lot. Maggie Nelson [in The Argonauts] was weaving together a memoir with literary theory and then jumping back and forth between a very rigorous political form and very personal material, and I liked that.” The personal and the theoretical are not routinely intermingled in autobiography or in intellectual theory. The bridge of autotheory between the two well defined genres is a new writing form that rebels against the separation of personal life and academic theory. Autotheory echoes the phrase popularized by radical feminist Carol Hanisch: The personal is political. Autotheory is activist-oriented exploration of the living identities of marginalized subjects that requires an exploration of self and an exploration of systemic power structures. Even seven years ago, Schreck’s use of the form and its transformation into a play was cutting edge, while staying true to playwriting traditions. 

Some of the most iconic playwrights of the 20th century set a precedent of challenging structure and genre. Schreck shares “… in the tradition of María Irene Fornés, my great hero, I don’t usually begin with a clear goal of what I’m trying to do. I begin to write very intuitively and instinctually. In the beginning, while I was making it, I was going so much on instinct because I knew I wanted to make something new” (Myers, Victoria. “The Prophet Arrived: Heidi Schreck”, The Interval, 10 Dec. 2018). Bringing autotheory to the stage came from Schreck’s intuition, not from recreation of classical play structures. As a lifelong theater maker it is no wonder Schreck’s instincts are so fruitful. She brought autotheory’s embrace of subjectivity home to the stage, so it could thrive in new and exciting ways. 

By bridging theory, memory, and narrative, autotheory generates unique writing that exists outside the bounds of objectivity. Autotheory is feeling and context. Nuances of personal context are as debated as historical and political contexts by those involved. When Schreck examines four generations of women in her family, she acknowledges the contested nature of their lives, as much as she acknowledges the contested nature of the Constitution. In Schreck’s examination, she allows emotion to interact with intellect as an equal. However, Schreck herself is the narrator, complicating her role in the exploration of family stories and national stories. Autotheory brings up questions of sincerity versus honesty, a friction passed down from the autobiography genre. Can anyone be completely honest when discussing themselves? If it is what they sincerely believe, does that make it the truth? What’s the difference between personal truth and empirical truth? Schreck steers into the complexity of writing about the women in her family by making herself the main character and narrator of What the Constitution Means to Me. Fictional narrators can lie to the audience; sincere narrators can only lie to themselves. By revisiting her fifteen-year-old self in the first half of the play, Schreck examines her own sincerity, and the lies or inaccuracies within it. In Dickensian fashion, she explores herself with a mentor from her past, who transforms into an actor contemporary from her present, and later is joined by a teenage debater who represents the future. They all reflect different aspects of the main character, and more than merely fact checking her, demonstrate her plurality as an individual. Each of us is many different people, to different people, even in one lifetime or one play.

Anything that begins with “auto-” implies a certain amount of focus on the self, yet Schreck strives to include those beyond her lived experience. As a narrator she consistently challenges her understanding of the Constitution and her personal history. In the play she tries to understand herself and the history she was taught by asking “Remember that thing I said about the male-to-female ratio in Washington state being nine to one? That’s not true. That’s what my history teacher Mr. Berger taught me. There were thousands of women in Washington, of course: the women of the Wenatchi tribes, the Salish tribes. And, apparently, some of these women had been marrying white men for a long time…” (Schreck, 32). Schreck is not always flawless in her inclusion. As a Native woman, being included as the consistently worst off in violence statistics or solely in the context of marrying white men isn’t exactly uplifting representation. There are many examples of what Native women have contributed to America and its founding document beyond martyrdom or marriage, especially through contributions to the Great Law of Peace. Though Schreck’s script doesn’t feature this unsung history, by the nature of autotheory Schreck recognizes her own insufficiencies on a topic as large as the Constitution. Instead of using the discomfort of an exposed ignorance as an excuse to exclude those outside her lived experience, she includes as many women as she can in her feminism. In Theatre Kapow’s February 2026 production, we have had to update certain statistics and facts that have been disproven or unbound with time and perspective, something Schreck fully endorses in her show notes. Even as the playwright and star, she is vulnerable enough to recognize her own mistakes. Schreck utilizes autotheory not to focus on the self, but to gain a deeper understanding of the self, offering a certain humility. Autotheory entails applying analytical thought to oneself, which requires self awareness and accountability in pursuit of the truth. Maybe even more precious than the pursuit of truth, is autotheory’s pursuit of understanding.

While focusing on how the Constitution has excluded and failed American women, including those in her own family, Schreck consistently gestures to the understanding that reality is far bigger than any one viewpoint, including her own. Schreck recognizes that violence against women must be examined through a nuanced, and intersectional frame. Schreck’s narrator is undeniably sincere in her humble willingness to meet what simply is, freshly. Schreck undeniably brought something new and fresh to Broadway and to autotheory, by taking the burgeoning genre to the stage. This genuine organic aspect is being highlighted by contemporary theater writers to express what has always been true about the theater- that what you see on stage is real. Whether or not you agree with its interpretations, it is sincere. Theater is happening live, in real time, instead of in compressed virtual time. It brings us to the present, where we can examine the past’s darkness and the future’s hope with special attention. Schreck expands her questioning of the Constitution from, “Why couldn’t the Constitution protect my grandmother and mother from abuse?” to the question, “Why doesn’t the Constitution protect all women?”. “Why not me?” becomes “Why not all of us?”. Schreck’s play is a web of questions about protection, and by using the genre of autotheory, her play activates our attention and understanding in an utterly human way.

Autotheory and What the Constitution Means to Me

Restoring Faith in Democracy through Storytelling

The key to saving our democracy is to restore our faith in it,
and storytelling is how we will do so.

Lessons from directing Heidi Schreck’s What the Constitution Means to Me

By Emma Cahoon

In What the Constitution Means to Me, playwright Heidi Schreck revisits her days competing in American Legion Oratorical Contests to explore the inseparability of our personal histories and our national history. She looks back into her own past, the pasts of the generations of women that have preceded her, and into the past of this governing document and its many refractions throughout time. Heidi Schreck wrote this play in 2017, and it premiered on Broadway in 2019; pre-COVID, pre-George Floyd, pre-January 6, pre-Dobbs, pre-2024 election, and everything that has followed.

When I sat down in front of this play after signing on to direct it at the end of last summer, I was captured by the friction of how different our current landscape is from just eight years ago when Heidi wrote it. I worried that our Constitution and the Democracy it seeks to uphold are losing their meaning by the minute, and I struggled to develop a sense of direction for the play. 

As we charge forward into the 250th anniversary of our country’s independence, we are confronted daily with a barrage of horrors that make many of us want to turn our hearts and minds away from the notion of a “democracy” that has rejected us and those we love. Taking an honest look at both the moment we are living through and the moments that have led us to it reveals a cracked foundation and a seemingly endless sea of false promises. Many of us no longer use the word “our” in reference to this country, because at some point, we realized we were not included in the preamble’s “We.” How can a person believe in something that never believed in them? 

Most of us, across any cultural, social, or political spectrum, can agree, however, that we are facing a crisis of polarization. Extremists in all directions have heightened the stakes and killed compromise, denying nuance, listening, and conversation. Division is encouraged, and we find ourselves crawling into corners of discourse that quickly become echo chambers. The extremists in the opposite cave have never seemed more different from us, and it requires effort to keep their inflated rhetoric at bay. Our impulse in every relationship we maintain, every piece of media we consume, and every choice we make, is to seek those who affirm what we already believe to be true. This leaves no room for curiosity and little air for empathy- two key ingredients for creating cogent and stimulating change, and also for live theatre. 

In truth, I struggled with this friction even as we began our rehearsal process. I had questions about how the play works in the year 2025 that I hadn’t even formed hypothetical answers to before our first readthrough. Sitting in front of the text, I realized that in order to unlock this play for myself, I needed to do the same thing Heidi sets out to do in it: to rediscover some faith in our democracy. After all, the loss of faith in our democracy might be part of what is killing it. Democracy, I realized, is like Tinker Bell; we must clap for her when she is on her deathbed, for every time you say you don’t believe in them, a fairy dies somewhere.

Now, my question was this: How do we get ourselves back to believing? How can we clap for a system that is clearly failing us? What is the “faith, trust, and pixie dust” of modern America?

Life interrupted my momentum; the very same week that we began rehearsing, my own great-grandmother, Lois, passed away at age 99. Her memorial services were held during our third week of rehearsals. The night before the funeral, I dove for hours into her large collection of genealogical research, absorbing generations-worth of family history as the Patriots beat the Dolphins in the background. In book titled “Our Family Tree,” I read the story of my ancestors’ immigration to America, written in my great-grandmother’s cursive script:

“Agnes Rylander was the oldest child of a church bellringer- a church worker who ran the school and the other secular activities. They lived next to the church. When she was sixteen, she went to live with her aunt, her father’s sister, whose only child, a son, died in infancy. She was educated as a daughter of a large property owner, learning fancy embroidery and music. She had a baby grand piano with her name on an engraved brass plaque at Trädet. Agnes fell in love with one of the workers, Wilgot Josefson, and went to America to join him two months after he immigrated to New York in 1885. They were married on her eighteenth birthday. He took the name Sanden. The Sandens lived in Mill Plains, Connecticut when daughter, Nellie was born in 1891. Agnes took Nellie to Sweden in 1896. They visited the Rylanders for a year. Nellie celebrated her sixth birthday at Trädet, the place where her parents fell in love, before coming back home to America.” 

(My personal amendment to the story is this: Nellie bore a daughter named Lois, who bore a daughter named Cynthia, who bore a son named Matthew, who married a woman named Carey, and together, they had a daughter- me!)

This was the earliest story written in the book, and each subsequent tale documented on the pages in front of me revealed many more patterns in my family’s history than I had realized were there. In every generation, my ancestors have been devotees of education, artists, lovers of community, skeptics of money, believers in democracy, teachers, readers, travelers, deep appreciators of nature. I began to realize that nothing about who I am is an accident, and there it was, deep inside me- the fairy-like flutter of belief in something larger than myself. 

So here, in an unexpected but ultimately very predictable place, was my answer. The secret ingredient to restoring our faith, the “pixie dust” to keep our freedom afloat- it’s stories. 

Stories are incredibly powerful. We know this because we fear misinformation, misinterpretation, misuse of narrative, misrepresentation of our character or intention. Stories have the power to help us imagine new possibilities. They allow us to see ourselves within something and to believe that we, too, are worthy of adventure, joy, ambition, success, love, triumph, and resolution. Stories allow us to realize that we are a part of something larger than ourselves. Stories can remind us of the legacies of historic events and the ripples of tiny, ordinary moments that have made us who we are today. 

To be an American is to have been raised with a shared set of standard stories, and therefore, the same ultimate set of core values that have unified our citizenship across time: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I may interpret the history and intentions of the Constitution differently from my neighbor, but the stories of all the various ways our Constitution has been used remind us that the facts on paper can contain a multitude of narratives. Stories illuminate the white space around the black ink on the page, remind us to constantly reinterpret, and encourage us to proudly reclaim.

Like democracy, storytelling is not a casual pastime; it is a necessity, an essential framework to our existence. This is put best by the great Audre Lorde in her 1985 essay “Poetry is Not a Luxury”: 

“For within structures defined by profit, by linear power, by institutional dehumanization, our feelings were not meant to survive. Kept around as unavoidable adjuncts or pleasant pastimes, feelings were meant to kneel to thought as we were meant to kneel to men. But women have survived. As poets. And there are no new pains. We have felt them all already. We have hidden that fact in the same place where we have hidden our power. They lie in our dreams, and it is our dreams that point the way to freedom. They are made realizable through our poems that give us the strength and courage to see, to feel, to speak, and to dare.”

Storytelling is necessary for liberation because, as Lorde points out, stories unlock our desires and open us up to imagining new pathways towards freedom. To be a citizen of a democracy grants you two gifts- it grants you a set of rights, but it also imparts upon you a set of responsibilities, too. What if we begin to look at speaking our truths and sharing our stories not just as our right, but as our responsibility?

Your fathers’ and uncles’ stories from the battlefield, stories of defending democracy, are necessary, even if you have different ideas of what that democracy should look like. They are necessary because there is value in passing down stories of people fighting for what they believed in. Your grandfathers’ stories of his father’s immigration to this country are important because they remind those who came after that we are where we are for a reason; that we are a part of a whole. The story of your elementary school field trip to Plymouth Rock, with all of the amendments and reinterpretations you have retroactively colored it with over time, is valuable because of what the memory has continued to teach you through its many evolutions. The story of the time you tried to recreate your grandmother’s apple pie but mistook salt for sugar is essential, because maybe just the memory of how the original tasted will provide comfort (another necessary tool). Maybe it will remind you of how much she loved you, and how she believed, wholeheartedly, in a better life for you than the one she’d had. She told you stories of her life to instill in you the belief in a better one, and those stories are why you take to the streets now and demand it. It is necessary to tell someone you love a story about the kindness of a neighbor, and then, in return for said kindness, to tell your neighbor a story about someone you love. These stories keep us from forgetting how to be kind and how to love.

We have to be willing to participate; to bravely take a step back towards the democracy and the history that have tried to shut us out; to recognize the malleability of the moment we are living in and choose to shape it rather than watch it be shaped. We might live in a healthier democracy if we think of each other not as opponents on opposite sides of extremist funhouse mirrors of truth, but as potential tellers of stories. I think Schreck believes this, too, given that she never refers to the writers of our governing document as the “founders,” but only as the “framers.” We must prove to each other that we believe in one another, and together, share stories that rouse belief like thunderous applause loud enough for the fairy-magic of democracy to be revived. 

Stories are the wind beneath the wings of where we’ve come from, who we are, and what we will become. What the Constitution Means to Me demonstrates this to be true of both our personal and national narratives, and my great-grandmother’s handwritten personal storybooks prove it, too. The storyteller in each of us is the part of us with complete agency; the storyteller is the part of us with the power to chart our own path; the storyteller within us is free and believes in freedom. That belief is what keeps the embers of this freedom alive.

Skip to content