Abstract
Drama is a text written for performance. How do performances, which are particular and unstable, shape drama as a text? What is the relationship between the text and the performances it intends to generate? The testimonies of playwrights articulate what writing for performance means, which considerations guide the composition of such texts, and how do such considerations influence the character of dramatic texts. I examine the authority that drama has over performance by focusing on two analogies used in contemporary philosophical debates. The choice of analogy itself shapes our way of thinking about the relationship between texts and their implementation in performances. Finally, I turn to drama as a practice of writing for audiences, rather than readers, analyzing the activity that drama performs in addressing audiences.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
An explication of the grounds for this claim requires an analysis of Arendt’s theory of action, theatrical and ordinary, which cannot be undertaken here. Halpern (2011) presents a lucid and critical account of Arendt’s conception of theater, which draws attention to what he understands as her anti-theatrical agenda—the fact that drama only mimics or represents action and is thus entirely derivative and secondary to ordinary action. Thinking of her account more favorably, we can briefly consider here two reasons that support her view of theatrical action as particularly suitable for the representation of human action: First, according to Arendt, non-theatrical action “…is never possible in isolation” (Arendt 1958, 188). Action is done in public and becomes meaningful only in the presence of others, for whom it is done, or before whom it is carried out. Theatrical action also never occurs in isolation. Beyond the fact that acting implies shared conventions, language, and interpretative skills, it requires a gathering of actors and audiences. Theater builds on the public nature of action and, consequently, it can draw our attention to the shared, social, and political dimensions of action. Second, the actor’s choices constitute an image of “who” the character is, rather than “what” it is, and so expose how our own actions in the world at large constitute “the real story in which we are engaged” (Arendt 1958, 186). For an account of the manner in which acting constitutes an image of the character’s project, see my analysis of Sartre’s theory of acting in (Levy 2017).
- 2.
In the Poetics, Aristotle analyzes the poetic genres of tragedy and the epic and promises to follow with an analysis of comedy, which is not provided (or perhaps is no longer extant). Although the definition of tragedy allows us to distinguish it from the literary or philosophical dialogs (as the former included catharsis of emotions through pity and fear, whereas the latter do not), it does not necessarily follow from the definition that dramatic poetry in general (which includes poetry too, where catharsis might not play a part and which certainly does not include pity and fear) can be distinguished from dialogs.
- 3.
For an alternative reading that highlights dramatic and performative modes of writing in Plato’s Symposium, see Rokem (2010).
- 4.
For an elaborate and illuminating discussion of other metaphors, such as the score, the blueprint, and the software that are also used to think about the nature of plays as texts and their relation to performances, see Worthen (2010).
- 5.
Certainly, recipes can omit information too or be indecisive regarding the action to be performed. How much exactly is a “pinch”? Should we chop or mash the avocado? In those cases, when the dish goes wrong, we can blame the recipe. We cannot similarly hold lack of information or ambiguity against the play in the case of failed performances. Saltz (2001) provides a different perspective on the play/recipe analogy and its implications for the text/performance relationship.
- 6.
Gerald Rabkin (1985) discusses two controversial cases of treating the text as the ultimate authority regarding potential performances: lawsuits filed by Arthur Miller and Samuel Beckett against theater companies that, they claimed, were not authorized to execute their work or created a distorted production of it.
- 7.
In The Caucasian Chalk Circle, Brecht must be responding, tongue in cheek, to Aristotle’s analysis of the proper length of drama. The Caucasian Chalk Circle is a long play, which is often not produced in its entirety. At the beginning of the play, the expert asks Arkadi, the singer, who is about to tell two stories that are a couple of hours long, “Couldn’t you shorten it?” to which the singer replies: “No” (Brecht 1999, 12).
- 8.
In this context Jacques Rancière’s call for the emancipation of the spectator naturally comes to mind. Rancière challenges the opposition between passive audiences and active performers and writers who attempt to educate them. The interaction between spectators and performers, he argues, is not captured by the paradigm of “uniform transmission” (Rancière 2009, 14). According to him, playwrights and spectators have the “power of the equality of intelligence” (17). The playwrights do not impart knowledge or educate the latter, and, ideally, they understand that their cognitive, social, and political situations as equal to those of the spectators.
Bibliography
Arendt, Hannah. 1958. The Human Condition. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Aristotle. 1995. Poetics. Edited and translated by Stephen Halliwell. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Badiou, Alain. 2015. In Praise of Theater. Translated by Andrew Bielski. Cambridge: Polity.
Brecht, Bertolt. 1999. The Caucasian Chalk Circle. Translated by Eric Bentley. University of Minnesota Press.
Carlson, Marvin. 1985. Theatrical Performance: Illustration, Translation, Fulfillment or Supplement? Theatre Journal 37 (1): 5–11.
Carroll, Noel. 2001. Interpretation, Theatrical Performance, and Ontology. The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 59 (3): 313–316.
Cole, Toby, ed. 1960. Playwrights on Playwriting. London: MacGibbon and Kee.
Feagin, Susan L. 2016. Reading Plays as Literature. In The Routledge Companion to Philosophy of Literature, edited by Noell Carroll and John Gibson, 185–197. New York, NY: Routledge.
Friedland, Louis S. 1964. Chekhov Letters on the Short Story the Drama and Other Literary Topics. London: Vision.
Fuegi, John. 1994. The Life and Lies of Bertolt Brecht. New York, NY: HarperCollins.
Gould, Thomas. 1990. The Ancient Quarrel between Poetry and Philosophy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Halpern, Richard. 2011. Theater and Democratic Thought: Arendt to Rancière. Critical Inquiry 37 (3): 545–572.
Hamilton, James R. 2007. The Art of Theater. Oxford: Blackwell.
Hamilton, James R. 2009. The Text-Performance Relation in Theater. Philosophy Compass 4 (4): 614–629.
Hasche, Christa, and Jutta Von Zitzewitz. 1999. Through the Minefield of Ideologies: Brecht and the Staging of Mutter Courage und ihre Kinder. Modern Drama 42 (2): 185–197.
Ibsen, Henrik. 1961. Hedda Gabler. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Ibsen, Henrik. 2008. Four Major Plays. Translated by James McFarlane and Jens Arup. Oxford and New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Lennard, John, and Mary Luckhurst. 2002. The Drama Handbook. Oxford and New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Levy, Lior. 2017. The Image and the Act—Sartre on Dramatic Theater. In The Philosophy of Theatre, Drama and Acting, edited by Tom Stern. London: Rowman and Littlefield, 89–108.
Nannicelli, Ted. 2011. Instruction and Artworks: Musical Scores, Theatrical Scripts, Architectural Plans, and Screenplays. British Journal of Aesthetics 51 (4): 399–414.
Rabkin, Gerald. 1985. Is There a Text on This Stage? Performing Arts Journal 9 (2/3): 142–159.
Rancière, Jacques. 2009. The Emancipated Spectator. Translated by Gregory Elliott. London and New York, NY: Verso.
Rokem, Freddie. 2010. Philosophers and Thespians. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Saltz, David Z. 2001. What Theatrical Performance Is (Not): The Interpretation Fallacy. The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 59 (3): 299–306.
Sartre, Jean-Paul. 1976. Sartre on Theater. Edited by Michel Contat and Michel Rybalka. New York, NY: Random House.
Shakespeare, William. 2012. The Tempest. Edited by David Lindley. Cambridge University Press.
Sophocles. 1998. Antigone, Oedipus the King and Electra. Translated by H.D.F. Kitto and edited by Edith Hall. Oxford and New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Thom, Paul. 2009. Works, Pieces, and Objects Performed. The Journal of Aesthetic Education 43 (3): 67–79.
Törnqvist, Egil, and Steene, Birgitta (eds. and trans.). 2007. Strindberg on Drama and Theatre. Amsterdam University Press.
Willett, John. 1977. The Theatre of Bertolt Brecht. London: Methuen.
Worthen, William B. 1998. Drama, Performativity, and Performance. PMLA 113 (5): 1093–1107.
———. 2010. Drama: Between Poetry and Performance. London: Blackwell-Wiley.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 2018 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Levy, L. (2018). Philosophy and Drama. In: Stocker, B., Mack, M. (eds) The Palgrave Handbook of Philosophy and Literature. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-54794-1_10
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-54794-1_10
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-137-54793-4
Online ISBN: 978-1-137-54794-1
eBook Packages: Religion and PhilosophyPhilosophy and Religion (R0)