Encastleing England: Evental History and Histor(y)iography in Barker’s Work

  • Alireza FakhrkonandehEmail author


The primary aim here is to explore how “the evental” model informs Barker’s epistemological-aesthetic stance towards history. We will see how Barker’s drama, in its treatment and conception of history, diverges from various modes/trends of historical representation by developing an “evental”—rather than a linear-progressive or dialectical-teleological—model. This evental model is driven by the aporetic logic of arrivant (Anti-History) and actualization of the immanent virtual. Second, this chapter demonstrates the uncanny contemporaneity of The Castle and, more generally, Barker’s oeuvre particularly in the post-Brexit context where a binary/dichotomy-based discourse of nationalist ideology and national sovereignty (described here as “wall or encastling ideology”) has emerged not only in the UK but, more broadly, across the globe. Finally, this chapter intends to re-cast the established reading of The Castle—where Skinner is depicted as the main tragic protagonist—and posits Ann as the central character. Ann is here argued to embody an alternative (to the matriarchal or patriarchal) economy and ethics (of desire, gender, and subjectivity) thereby instigating the three pivotal events of the play: the re-writing of the Bible, the construction of the castle, and Krak’s symbolic conversion.


Evental history The virtual The castle Wall ideology New materialism Aporetic logic of arrivant 


  1. Donesky, F. “Oppression, Resistance and the Writer’s Testament”—Interview with Howard Barker. New Theatre Quarterly II, no. 8 (November 1986): 336–44.Google Scholar
  2. Fakhrkonandeh, Alireza. “Asyntactic Contact with Fleshless Words: Howard Barker’s The Castle.Journal of Contemporary Drama in English 1, no. 2 (2013): 279–297.Google Scholar
  3. Holford, W. D., M. Ebrahimi, O. Aktout and L. Simon. “Viewing Boundary ‘Objects’ as Boundary Constructions.” In Proceedings of the 41st Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 1–11, 2008.Google Scholar
  4. Irigaray, Luce. “Women’s Exile.” Ideology and Consciousness 1. Elemental Passions. Trans. Joanne Collie and Judith Still. New York: Athlone Press, 1992.Google Scholar
  5. Latour, B. “Visualization and Cognition: Thinking with Eyes and Hands.” Knowledge and Society: Studies in the Sociology of Culture Past and Present 6 (1986): 1–40.Google Scholar
  6. ———. Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers through Society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1987.Google Scholar
  7. Rabey, D. I. Howard Barker—Politics and Desire. London: Macmillan, 1989.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Star, S. L. and Griesemer, J. R. “Institutional Ecology, “Translations” and Boundary Objects: Amateurs and Professionals in Berkeley’s Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907–1939.” Social Studies of Science 19 (1989): 387–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of SouthamptonSouthamptonUK

Personalised recommendations