Dangerous Historical Assumptions

Subject: An inaccurate historical assertion in our textbook, THE THEATRICAL IMAGINATION.

For passage in question (p. 48-9 of our textbook), click on the title of this post - it should take you to a separate blog, where I've posted the quotation at length and commented in detail, along with a bibliographic citation.

In brief, the authors make the questionable assertion that "it is not surprising" that dramatic art "has flourished in humanistic societies" that grant freedoms to the individual, "and has been suppressed by totalitarian or fundamentalist socities." If they are speaking strictly of REPRESSION, then their statement is more or less accurate. But they go on to cite Elizabethan England and France under the absolutist monarchy of the Sun King as examples of humanistic societies whose freedoms have encouraged theatre! Both of these empires carefully restricted theatrical arts; both recognized theatre's value in solidifying political power. And while totalitarian regimes certainly exert harsh and vigorous controls on theatre, they also celebrate it - particularly when they can control it, and control the audience's responses to it: take, for example, the Nazis' fondness for grand social gatherings whose endorsement of civic religion were tantamount to public ritual, or their enthusiasm for a rigorous (if flawed and reductionist) interpretation of Wagner.

My point is that this sort of off-handed historical equation is dangerous; certainly the warning flag appears when the authors assert that this sort of thing should be perfectly obvious. What is not obvious - but very interesting - is the extent to which theatre flourishes under repressive governments, and particularly those nation-states or social systems with Imperialistic aspirations. Tell Vaclav Havel (or Harold Pinter) that theatre only thrives in nations that value individualism and freedom. Consider that Hellenic theatre itself survives because of the imperial aspirations of Alexander the Great: everywhere he went, he built cities, and in those cities he (and those who followed him) built permanent theatres - the oldest theatres known. Contrary to Huberman & Co.'s notion, there appears to be an interesting association between emerging Empires and an embrace of theatrical entertainments and theatre as a cultural paradigm.

Is theatre counter-cultural, humanistic, or individualistic? Perhaps. It would seem at least to be Socratic, and a powerful source for revolution as well as more gradual forms of social change. But it can also be used with remarkable effectiveness as a means for social engineering, and we (who study the theatre) would forget this at our peril.