An Enemy of Postdramatic Theatre? Or, What I Think About When I Think About Teaching Postdramatic Theatre

  • Glenn D’Cruz
Chapter

Abstract

This articulates a set of anxieties about teaching postdramatic theatre through a reading of Thomas Ostermeier’s adaptation of Henrik Ibsen’s An Enemy of the People. It offers a final assessment of the utility and strengths of Lehmann’s concept of postdramatic theatre with particular reference to questions of pedagogy, politics and aesthetics. In the epilogue to Postdramatic Theatre, Lehmann states that postdramatic theatre engages with a certain kind of pedagogy that deliberately formulates non-rational approaches to contesting the hegemony of consumer society. The chapter concludes by posing a series of questions about the future of Lehmann’s concept: does the vocabulary of postdramatic theatre operate as a practical pedagogical tool today? Do we need to formulate new, more invigorating ideas to engage with contemporary performance? And if so, what kind of vocabulary might displace Lehmann’s?

References

  1. Agamben, Giorgio. 1993. The Coming Community. Translated by Michael Hardt. Minnesota: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  2. Bacon, Jane, and Franc Chamberlain. 2005. Editorial: The Practice of Performance Studies in the United Kingdom. Studies in Theatre and Performance 25 (3): 179–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bartlett, A.J., and Justin Clemens. 2017. What is Education? Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh Press.Google Scholar
  4. Bottoms, Stephen. 2011. An Open Letter to Richard Schechner. In The Rise of Performance Studies: Rethinking Richard Schechner’s Broad Spectrum, ed. James M. Harding and Cindy Rosenthal, 23–38. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Croggon, Alison. 2010. Benedict Andrews and Barrie Kosky: Two Innovative Australian Directors. TheatreForum 37: 3–12.Google Scholar
  6. D’Cruz, Glenn. 2017. Re-Routing Ibsen: Adaptation as Tenancy/Occupation in Simon Stone’s The Wild Duck and Thomas Ostermeier’s An Enemy of the People. In Ethical Exchanges in Translation, Adaptation and Dramaturgy, ed. Elmer O’Toole, Andrea Palegri, and Stuart Young, 65–79. Leiden: Brill.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dean, Jodie. 2012. The Communist Horizon. London and New York: Verso.Google Scholar
  8. Eagleton, Terry. 2013. The Rise and Fall of Theory. In Modern Criticism and Theory, ed. Nigel Wood and David Lodge, 821–824. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  9. Fuchs, Elinor. 2008. Postdramatic Theatre (Review). TDR: The Drama Review 52 (2 (T198)): 178–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Grehan, Helena. 2014. Introduction: Performances of Resistance/Resisting Performance. Performance Paradigm 10: 4–5. http://www.performanceparadigm.net/index.php/journal/article/view/140/139.Google Scholar
  11. Lehmann, Hans-Thies. 2006. Postdramatic Theatre. Translated and with an introduction by Karen Jürs-Munby. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  12. ———. 2008. Lehmann Responds. TDR: The Drama Review 52 (4 (T200)): 13–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. McKenzie, Jon. 2001. Perform or Else: From Discipline to Performance. London and New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Melrose, Susan. 2011. A Cautionary Note or Two, Amid the Pleasures and Pains of Participation in Performance-making as Research. In Participatory Research & Learning in the Performing Arts. London: Centre for Creative Collaboration.Google Scholar
  15. Newfield, Christopher. 2011. Unmaking the Public University: The Forty-Year Assault on the Middle Class. Boston: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Poole, Gaye. 2010. Introduction: Teaching Theatre, Performance and Drama Studies. Australasian Drama Studies 57: 4–9.Google Scholar
  17. Rancière, Jacques. 1991. The Ignorant Schoolmaster: Five Lessons in Intellectual Emancipation. Translated and with an introduction by Kristin Ross. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  18. ———. 2004. The Politics of Aesthetics: The Distribution of the Sensible. Translated by Gabriel Rockhill. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
  19. ———. 2009. The Emancipated Spectator. Translated by Gregory Elliot. London: Verso.Google Scholar
  20. Rorty, Richard. 1989. Contingency, Irony and Solidarity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Roth, Michael S. 2014. Beyond the University: Why Liberal Education Matters. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Schechner, Richard. 1992. TDR Comment: A New Paradigm for Theatre in the Academy. TDR: The Drama Review 36 (4): 7–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Shaw, George Bernard. 1994 (1904). The Quintessence of Ibsenism. New York: Dover Publications.Google Scholar
  24. Stegemann, Bernd. 2009. “After Postdramatic Theater.” Translated by Matthew R. Price. Theater 39 (3): 11–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Stucky, Nathan, and Cynthia Wimmer, eds. 2002. Teaching Performance Studies. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.Google Scholar
  26. The Invisible Committee. 2008. The Coming Insurrection. Los Angeles: Semiotext(e).Google Scholar
  27. Wangh, Stephen. 2013. The Heart of Teaching. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  28. Williams, Bruce. 1990. The Ghost in the Workshop: Liberal Education and Practical Drama. Meridian 9 (1): 170–177.Google Scholar
  29. Williams, Raymond. 1991 (1954). Drama in Performance. Buckingham: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Zakaria, Fareed. 2015. In Defense of a Liberal Education. New York: W.W. Norton and Company.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Glenn D’Cruz
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Communication & Creative ArtDeakin UniversityBurwoodAustralia

Personalised recommendations