The three readings for this week each outline alternative potentials (and now actualized roles) for theatre and performance within contemporary divisions of labor and structures of power. Bertolt Brecht and Augusto Boal each begin with a critique of traditional or Aristotelian theatre, accounting differently for the entanglement of these practices with political interests. Boal interprets Aristotle’s definition of tragedy as a tool for political repression. He says that the catharsis elicited from the spectator in theatre represents “the purgation of all anti-social elements” (47) and provokes a realignment with the ‘moral’ expectations of the State. Brecht similarly critiques the passivity of spectators in traditional theatre: “Seeing and hearing are activities, and can be pleasant ones, but these people seem relieved of activity and like men to whom something is being done” (187). While Boal reimagines theatre’s revolutionary potential by proposing the roles of the “joker” and the “spect-actor”, Brecht instead suggests that theatre and its actors should create a sense of alienation rather than identification from the audience (“I must not simply set myself in his place, but must set myself facing him, to represent us all. That is why the theatre must alienate what it shows” (193)).
I was most struck by the recurrent critique of empathy present throughout the readings. In Performance, Diana Taylor asks “does the performance event have to have happened?” (66) She follows this question with a description of the Transborder Immigrant Tool (TBT) which, despite never fulfilling its intended function, produced political consequences because of its potential and its intentions. The work is significantly not reclaimed because of the empathic outcomes for those who did “experience” it, but for its role in disturbing political discourse. Still, this example of performance could be critiqued from Brecht’s perspective as it is not exactly set “at the disposal of those who live hard and produce much” (Brecht, 186). Taylor is, then, expanding the possibilities for political engagements within performance. She later says “Performance is not judged in terms of true/false; being/pretending. Instead, the affective is the effective.” To what extent does this challenge/extend the positions of Boal and Brecht in their articulations of the political potential of theatre? Is this affective mobilization related to empathy or does it produce some more profound/radical political transformation?
Finally, does the establishment of conventional practices of resistance and the categorization of performance within the realm of “art” limit its transformative political potential? Can these practices of political theatre and performance still be said to participate in Rancière’s “aesthetic regime” of art (if I understand the concept properly)?