Theatre in the Age of Uncertainty: Memory, Technology, and Risk in Simon McBurney’s The Encounter and Robert Lepage’s 887

  • Lourdes OrozcoEmail author


This chapter aims to produce a direct dialogue between contemporary theatre practice and the key aspects that constitute the risk society: the prominence of the future as the only time that matters, individualisation processes, and the end of nature/tradition/history. Taking two recent theatre productions as a point of departure, this chapter explores the subtle ways in which contemporary theatre resists the risk society’s structures through the construction of alternative ideologies that foreground memory and remembering. The chapter looks at these two productions in the context of a critical moment in the West in which risk shapes political and social ideologies, producing particular mechanisms of social control (self-regulation), social structures focused on the individual, and a relationship with time that promotes uncertainty and an obsession with risk.


  1. Alston, Adam. 2013. Audience Participation and Neoliberal Value: Risk, Agency and Responsibility in Immersive Theatre. Performance Research 18 (2): 128–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arendt, Hannah. 1958. The Human Condition. Chicago; London: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  3. Augé, Marc. 1995. Non-places: Introduction to an Anthropology of Supermodernity. London: Verso.Google Scholar
  4. Beck, Ulrich. 1992. Risk Society. Towards a New Modernity. London; Thousand Oaks; New Delhi: Sage.Google Scholar
  5. Beck, Ulrich. 2002. The Cosmopolitan Society and Its Enemies. Theory, Culture & Society 19 (1–2): 17–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Beck, Ulrich, and Elisabeth Beck-Gernsheim. 2002. Individualization. Institutionalized Individualism and its Social and Political Consequences. London; Thousand Oaks; New Delhi: Sage.Google Scholar
  7. Beck, Ulrich, Anthony Giddens, and Scott Lash. 1994. Reflexive Modernization. Politics, Tradition and Aesthetics in the Modern Social Order. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  8. Frizzell, Nell. 2015. Photos are Memories we Hand Over to Clouds. No Wonder they Are so Fragile. (30 November 2015). The Guardian online. Accessed 22 Feb 2016.
  9. Fukuyama, Francis. 1992. The End of History and the Last Man. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
  10. Gardner, Lyn. 2015. The Greatest Risk in Theatre? Not Taking any Risks. The Guardian online (12 August 2015). Accessed 25 May 2016.
  11. Giddens, Anthony. 1999. Risk and responsibility. The Law Review 62 (1): 1–10.Google Scholar
  12. Haraway, Donna. 2007. When Species Meet. Minneapolis; London: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  13. Hunt, Alan. 2003. Risk and moralization in everyday life. In Risk and Morality, ed. Richard Ericson and Aaron Doyle, 165–192. Toronto; Buffalo; London: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
  14. Huyssen, Andreas. 2000. Present Pasts: Media, Politics, Amnesia. Public Culture 12 (1): 21–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kearney, Richard. 2002. On Stories (Thinking in Action). London; New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  16. Lupton, Deborah. 2006. Sociology and Risk. In Beyond the Risk Society: Critical Reflections on Risk and Human Security, eds. Gabe Mythen, and Sandra Walklate, 11–24. London: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Orozco, Lourdes. 2010. Never Work with Children and Animals: Risk, Mistake and the Real in Performance. Performance Research 15 (2): 80–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Scott, Alan. 2000. Risk Society or Angst Society? Two Views of Risk, Consciousness and Community. In The Risk Society and Beyon: Critical Issues for Social Theory, ed. Barbara Adam, Ulrich Beck and Joost Van Loon, 33–46. London; Thousand Oaks; New Delhi: Sage.Google Scholar
  19. Spitzer, Manfred. 2013. Demencia Digital. El peligro de las nuevas tecnologías (in Spanish from original in German). Barcelona: Ediciones B.Google Scholar
  20. Spitzer, Manfred. 2014. Information Technology in Education: Risks and Side Effects. Trends in Neuroscience and Education 3 (3–4): 81–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. White, Gareth. 2012. On Immersive Theatre. Theatre Research International 37 (3): 221–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. White, Gareth. 2013. Audience Participation in Theatre: Aesthetics of the Invitation. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  23. Woodward, Kathleen. 1999. Statistical panic. Differences: A Journal of Feminist Cultural Studies 11 (2): 177–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of LeedsLeedsUK

Personalised recommendations