World Theories of Theatre

Glenn A. Odom

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2017
• ISBN:
  9781317586289
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Médias et arts de la scène
• Subtopic: Théâtre

World Theories of Theatre expands the horizons of theatrical theory beyond the West, providing the tools essential for a truly global approach to theatre.

Identifying major debates in theatrical theory from around the world, combining discussions of the key theoretical questions facing theatre studies with extended excerpts from primary materials, specific primary materials, case studies and coverage of Southern Africa, the Caribbean, North Africa and the Middle East, Oceania, Latin America, East Asia, and India. The volume is divided into three sections:

• Theoretical questions, which applies cross-cultural perspectives to key issues from aesthetics to postcolonialism, interculturalism, and globalization.
• Cultural and literary theory, whichis organised by region, presentinga range of theatrical theories in their historical and cultural context.
• Practical exercises, which provides a brief series of suggestions for physical exploration of these theoretical concepts.

World Theories of Theatre presents fresh, vital ways of thinking about the theatre, highlighting the extraordinary diversity of approaches available to scholars andstudents of theatre studies.

This volume includes theoretical excerpts from:

• Zeami Motokiyo
• Bharata Muni
• Wole Soyinka
• Femi Osofisan
• Uptal Dutt
• Saadallah Wannous
• Enrique Buenaventura
• Derek Walcott
• Werewere Liking
• Maryrose Casey
• Augusto Boal
• Tadashi Suzuki
• Jiao Juyin
• Oriza Hirata
• Gao Xingjian
• Roma Potiki
• Poile Sengupta

Chapter 1
Introduction

World, theatre, theory

This book is both an anthology of and a guide to world theatre theory from Asia, Africa, Australia, New Zealand, and South America. This book has pedagogical aims, seeking to introduce material that will often be unfamiliar to a Western audience. It will be most useful for scholars trying to expand their breadth, although it does provide ample suggestions for further readings as well. This book could not have been written without the brilliant work done by scholars who have devoted their lifetime to study and practice within the regions and nations discussed here – and, as an overview, it can never hope to do justice to the richness of their arguments. I do hope, however, that this book provides one ground for fostering conversations between and among these specialists and their students.

What do artists, directors, actors, and academics from these regions have to say about the way theatre works and about the relationship between theatre and society? Each of these regions provide a diverse array of historical and contemporary performances, theatrical practices, and theories about literature and theatre. The West has offered a number of theatrical theories which are frequently used to explain, interpret, and analyze theatre from these other regions. This guide provides a starting point for utilizing the theories of a wider range of locations as a means of understanding theatre. Before providing a further rationale for such a guide, it is important to define the terms “world,” “theatre,” and “theory.”

World

There are two notions of “world” at play in the text. First, there is “world” as a marker of breadth – theories from multiple locations around the world. The volume unapologetically uses the word “world” to signify that portion of the world which is not Europe, Russia, or the U.S. – which is to say, most of the world. For decades, “world” anthologies have unapologetically included only these regions that I exclude. Many of these anthologies have been expanded to include one or two samples from “other” locations but still give precedence to Western materials.

If the point of this anthology is to bring together theories from parts of the world traditionally underrepresented in Western collections, why call this a “world” anthology rather than choosing another term? The phrase “non-Western” implies that the West is the definition and other places are “not” meeting this definition. The phrase “Third World” comes out of Marxist terminology and implies parts of the world which are neither communist nor capitalist. “Postcolonial” implies that each of the locations in question was subjected to colonial dominance at some point in the past, which is not the case. “South American, Australian, Asian, and African” is specific yet cumbersome, and it tends to reinforce the idea that the continents are homogenous locales. “Global East and South” is the best currently used option, but it is closely linked to postcolonial studies and again implies homogeneity. “World” in this context refers to a scope and diversity of possible theories.

I have chosen the word “world” to suggest the diversity of possibilities in theatre from the regions in question, but the word has a second meaning as well: the idea that there might be an interconnection, a commonality, or a value to considering exchange. Maybe there is something to the idea of theatre as a world phenomenon. Perhaps there is something different that can be learned about the whole subject when placed in this larger context. In order to determine if this idea of an interconnected world is of value, we must first understand the parts of the world on their own terms (recognizing that these terms are frequently informed by generations of intercultural contact).

This idea of an interconnected world beckons tantalizingly from the theatre: for instance, Neloufer De Mel (1999) explores a Sri Lankan theatre’s production of Wole Soyinka’s (Nigerian) Opera Woyonsi, which is an adaptation of both John Gay’s (British) The Beggar’s Opera and Bertolt Brecht’s (German) Threepenny Opera, which is itself an adaptation of Gay’s work. At least four different cultures and countries collide in this intercultural production. While examining each region, nation, or group individually yields results, contemporary theatre also travels, both metaphorically and literally. This anthology is structured in such a way as to provide two necessary approaches to productions like the one De Mel describes: first, this production must be understood in terms of each of its separate theatrical traditions; second this production must be understood in terms of the blending of these various traditions and theories of theatre.

The word “world” here signals crossing boundaries and circulation – theatre in motion, touring theatre, intercultural and transnational theatre, and theatre texts being read in new locations. This “world” denotes fields that deal with similarity and difference, with a balance between breadth and depth, with new notions of textuality, and with new notions of reading. I stand behind the choice to couch this project in terms of “world” precisely because I want to raise those issues: new theories both present and require new ways of accessing texts.

This idea of “world” is not without its problems. The contents of this anthology are diverse – they do not point to one, single type of theatre, but rather to many different conceptions of what theatre is and does and looks like. The word “world” could wrongly imply a universality – that there is a single definition of theatre that has variations around the world. In this definition of world, which is not the one at stake here, differences are reduced to window-dressing over the core of similarity. As Chinua Achebe (1997) points out, the word “universal” is often code for “Western.” This anthology gives equal weight to both similarity and difference in both local and global contexts. The “world” here is a world where ideas are created locally, transmitted globally, and then reinterpreted in new local contexts.

The idea of theory being produced “locally” raises its own set of problems with the definition of “world.” Presupposing that theory emerges from particular parts of the world places focus on the identity of a given author. In our current globalized world, it is commonplace in academies around the world to encounter people of a range of nationalities. Is an American who has taught in Nigeria for 25 years then writing “Nigerian” theory? What sort of theory is an Indian writing about India from within the U.S. academy producing? Rather than claiming the ability to distinguish some sort of cultural authenticity, which would be a dubious claim indeed, this book classifies theory according to its explicit intended audience, the author’s own explicit self-identification within the work in question, and the specificity of the matter being discussed. Thus, something like Wole Soyinka’s (1976) exploration of theatre-qua-theatre from his explicitly Nigerian perspective for a world audience fits (see Chapter 2), while something like Kanika Batra’s (2010) feminist comparative approach to the theatres of India, Jamaica, and Nigeria, written in the neutral voice that characterizes Western writing for an academic audience, does not (despite the cultural heritage of the author herself). This is not a judgment of the quality of the theory in question, merely of the stated aims of the author and whether these aims reveal the piece to be non-Western theatre theory (as in the case of Soyinka) or a theorization of non-Western theatre (as in the case of Batra). “Local” here means either a nation, an ethnicity, or a region, depending on how the author contextualizes the work and is a matter of critical judgment on my part.

The above classification system is not absolute, particularly as it approaches edge-cases that exist in multiple modes of discourse at once. For instance, William H. Sun, under several names, has written pieces for Western audiences, pieces for Chinese audiences, and pieces for both audiences. He writes on an array of topics and was educated in both China and the U.S. Labeling such a writer as either belonging to the West or the world does not work. South African theatre theorists are particularly difficult to classify with this system as their work is often received quite differently in the U.S., the U.K., and within South Africa itself. With a limited amount of space, I have generally opted for writers who position themselves further from the Western academy as such writers are more likely to be new to the audience of this book.

This returns us to the global part of the definition of “world.” At various points in history, large portions of the world have been connected culturally and economically. The idea of a nation-state is still relatively new. The structure of this book emphasizes the possibility of connections between regions (including the West) even as it points out the specificity of theory from each region. Except for the very earliest theorists discussed here, all the writers, Western or world, explicitly reference the theatre and / or theory emerging from at least one other region somewhere in their extended writings. Once the Western academy gains more familiarity with theories emerging from the world and begins to incorporate such theories on an equal footing with Western theatrical theory, there is certainly space for further examination of the intercultural nature of modern theatre theory.

Theatre

In the context of world theatres, the definition of theatre often ends up reinforcing a divide between ritual and theatre and / or between performance and theatre, but this will not be the case here. In these commonplace divisions, “theatre” is a text-based phenomenon, usually taking place in a custom-built playhouse under the supervision of a director. This sort of theatre is performed to promote culture, to educate, or to provide entertainment. “Performance” in this definition refers to actions that follow a different set of rules from everyday life, but generally excludes theatre. Storytelling, sporting matches, holiday celebrations, circuses, and religious observances are some common examples of performance. “Ritual” is a subcategory of performance that is, unfortunately, most regularly used to refer to performances of religious or social significance in non-Western parts of the world (“non-Western” is the appropriate term here because the intention is to signal that these locations are being treated as different from the West): African masked dances or Buddhist prayers are common examples of “ritual.”

The issue with the above definitions is that they assume that “real” theatre looks like it does in one vision of Western theatre, and this is simply not the case in the rest of the world (or even always in the West). What does one do with highly narrative forms of dance like the Indian Kathakali, which clearly tell stories but don’t have scripts in the same way as Western theatre? What about performances like Werewere Liking’s in the Ivory Coast which are clearly scripted but are also intended to enact a ritual and change something in society (see Chapter 4)? Diana Looser (2011) provides a host of examples of Pacific Island performances that can be considered theatre if we broaden our definition. On the other hand, considering everything to be “theatre” decreases the power of the term as an analytical device.

How then should one choose what counts as “theatre” and what does not? This anthology defines theatre locally rather than globally. I selected materials not based on their ability to match a preconceived notion of theatre, but on the topic they addressed. As with defining where a given theory comes from, defining whether or not something is theatre depends on whether or not the critic in question, from within the local context, considers it to be theatre. This allows for movement between religiously inflected theatres like those of Bharata and Liking, text-based theatre like Wole Soyinka’s, and theatre that moves between text and physicality like Gao Xingjian’s. Part of what is at stake in these theories is precisely how one defines theatre at that given moment in that given context.

This definition is problematic inasmuch as it does exclude a number of performance traditions that clearly inform theatrical practice. For instance, egungun is a masked dance (performed by several ethnicities in Nigeria) designed to bring a community together. It also features prominently in a number of Nigerian plays. It is absolutely not thought of as theatre in Nigeria, although its “theatrical” nature is recognized. These types of performance are addressed in other anthologies. This anthology focuses on theatre as defined in each given context.

Theory

In the Western academy “theory” is the use of a series of ideas to open up new ways of understanding texts or the world in which we live. In this common usage, theory is spread in written forms and often grows out of the analytical philosophers (like Kant or Hegel) or resistance to these philosophies. Theory also is often preceded by an adjective that suggests a political nature: Marxist, feminist, or postcolonial.

As a number of Western critics have pointed out, theorization – generation of new ideas – can happen during performance, in narratives, in dialogue, and in a number of other forms. Broadly speaking, this is referred to as “practice-based” theory. This anthology includes a number of case studies and physical activities as an effort to recognize the vitality of such practice-based theory. One issue with such theory is that it can be difficult to transmit its results to a wider public in writing given that they were discovered physically. Most of our academic knowledge is consumed in written form, so practice-based theory often ends up as written theory that had its roots in practice. Certainly, many of the printed pieces here fall into this category. Other pieces were initially published as part of novels, religious texts, or interviews. These styles of writing fall outside the “norm” of theory in the West, but are clearly engaging with the creation of ideas about how theatre and the world work.

Despite the fact that much theatre theory emerges from practice, there is currently a division in many parts of the Western academy between practice and theory. While it is far beyond the scope of this book to prove this point, the hostility between practice and theory is detrimental to theatre. In its most virulent form, theoreticians can argue (or appear to imply) that practitioners are not rigorous or haven’t thought through their work. Practitioners can argue (or appear to imply) that theoreticians are too abstract and out of touch with the reality of theatre. In fact, these two approaches are not mutually exclusive. I have never met a practitioner, however hostile to theory, who didn’t, in fact, theorize their own work in some fashion. Without practitioners, theoreticians would have nothing to write about. The inclusion of a “practical” section at the end of this book encourages readers to think about the ways in which these theories might be enacted and embodied. Indeed, a significant percentage of the theories contained here make explicit reference to the relationship between practice and theory.

The two adjectives in “world theatre theories” have already been defined, but it is important to note that the ideas of similarity and difference contained in “world” applies to the plural version of the word “theory” as well. There are multiple theories presented here, each of which can stand on its own. These theories do share a common concern with broadly defined theatre and as such, some similarities emerge between various theories presented, although no single similarity is present across all the theories in question.

Why read (or write) this book?

Over the course of the past year, I have encountered the word “Brechtian” used in a variety of contexts. Two of these stuck out to me, not because they are unique, but because they are deeply problematic and quite common. The first was a description of a piece of modern Chinese theatre as Brechtian. The second was a description of traditional Zulu performance as Brechtian. One problem here is temporality: traditional Zulu performance predates Brecht. The problem in the first case is slightly more complex. A modern Chinese playwright might well have been influenced by Brecht, but Brecht characterizes a major portion of his theory as having come out of the Chinese tradition. It is not uncommon to find such ahistorical, non-situated analyses in theatre studies, and their prevalence points to limitations in both our current theoretical vocabulary and the accessibility of world theories of theatre.

The definition of theory provided above suggests that theory enables us to see the world or theatre in new ways. Western theory provides a set of specific vantage points and can generate certain types of knowledge. Every theoretical system comes from a specific vantage point and every system has its blind-spots and limitations alongside its strengths. The type of knowledge generated by the thoughtful application of Western theory to world materials is not wrong, but it is limited. The more theoretical vantage points we have, the stronger our understanding of theatre practice will become.

The above statement is somewhat utopian. Theories exist in a globalized society that is strongly influenced by power dynamics. While there is nothing inherently wrong about applying Western theatre theory to world texts, this application is damaging when it is done at the expense of the other theories in question. Theories emerging from the world are treated as derivative of Western theory, just as theatrical practices from other parts of the world are often read as derived from Western practice. This becomes a habit of thought that is so deeply engrained that attempting to change things is met with resistance.

There is another reason for creating such a volume, which is curiously almost the opposite of the first. On one hand, there are critics who want to read everything in terms of the West. On the other hand, there are people who insist on the radical specificity of their own fields of specialization. These scholars insist that their ten years of theatre from their one region of one nation must be examined and contextualized within the period and region – they argue that the distinctiveness of the moment makes comparison irrelevant.

As with the use of Western theory, examining various moments of theatre in their narrowest contexts provides interesting results, and this approach has strengths and weaknesses. These locally-centered examinations can often unintentionally suggest that the local material is only relevant locally, for instance implying that Western theory has a global reach, but Chinese theory is only applicable in Chinese contexts. Not only does this keep the rich array of knowledges offered by area specialists separate from mainstream academic theatre discussions, it...