Theatre of the Oppressed Section 4

Theatre of the Oppressed—Augusto Boal

© 1974 © 1979 English Translation

Translation by Charles A. & Maria-Odilia Leal McBride

Section 4: Poetics of the Oppressed

            The artistic means of expression of theater was originally developed as a celebration of all members of a community participating in the spectacle. It then became a device of the aristocracy to separate actors from spectators, and even the protagonist from the other performers. Theater became a means to communicate material the ruling class felt was important, therefore controlling, and to render the spectators passive about said information. Coercive indoctrination began.

Augusto Boal’s development of poetics of the oppressed/theatre of the oppressed sought and continues to seek the fulfillment of the origins of theater.  He suggests that the audience must once again participate and act.  The actions of the spectators are as valid and important as the actors’ work, and the passive nature of a theater audience is ended.  In this section of his work, Boal offers approaches to how the people can “reassume their protagonistic function in the theater” as well as in society (p. 119).  He points out that in Aristotelian theater, the spectator delegated power to the dramatic characters and thus found catharsis.

Brecht, meanwhile, reasoned that the audience member granted power to the character on stage who would act in his stead, but reserved the right to think on his or her own and develop critical consciousness.  For Boal’s poetics of the oppressed, the spectator entrusts power to no one but retains it in order to participate, act, and create possible plans for change.

Experiments with the People’s Theater in Peru

            In 1973, the government in Peru worked to develop a literacy program for the three to four million citizens that were illiterate or semi-illiterate. The organizers of the program, Operación Alfabetización Integral (ALFIN), recognized that many of the illiterate were not people who were unable to express themselves, but unable to do so in a particular language. With many languages being spoken in the country, not just dialects, ALFIN members began to coordinate their efforts based on the idea that by learning a new language, a “person acquires a new way of knowing reality and of passing that knowledge on to others” (p. 121). The ALFIN project developed two principal goals:

1. To teach literacy in the first language of the participant as well as the dominant language of Spanish, and
2. To teach literacy through other languages, especially artistic ones including photography, film, journalism, and theater.

Boal felt that theater in particular is a language that can be easily used by anyone, regardless of artistic talent. There were many actions taken by the members of the project to encourage the participants to find ways to discuss and dialogue about their situation. 

One artistic language that Boal describes is the use of photography. For this project, the study group participants were asked a simple question:  Where do you live?  From the use of tangible objects such as photographs, the group members could engage in dialogue regarding the images.  Some of the images were straight forward—the interior of a small dwelling.  Other images were more obscure—the bank of a river or the main street of a neighborhood.  When given the opportunity to discuss why the images were what they were, it became clear to the ALFIN organizers and others what the study group members interpreted when asked the question.  The man who had taken the picture of the river bank did so because of the danger it posed to his young son. The woman who took the photo of the main street explained that she was new to the area and instantly recognized the street as a line of demarcation between the wealthy who lived on one side and the poor who lived on the other side of the street.

Boal continues to describe the photography project as it relates to theater.  The photos helped in establishing valid symbols for the group.  Too often, theater will fail to reach the spectators because it will use images and symbols that are meaningless to the audience. Shared meaning with all participants is a crucial goal of theater.

Another critical element of theater is that of the primary tool of theatrical presentations—the human body.  Those who participate in theater must first be in complete control of their bodies.  The notion is to make the body more expressive, and therefore prepared to become a subject in the theater and transform from witness to participant.

According to Boal, in order to begin to reclaim the origins of theater, it is crucial to guide transformation of spectator to actor in theater.  He offers exercises within four stages to utilize:

First stage: Knowing the body. Create a physical understanding of one’s reality and why that reality exists.

Second stage: Making the body expressive. Tap into and explore the enormous expressive capabilities of the human body.

Third stage: The theater as language.  Recognize that theater as a language offers participants a way to experience living in the present and not display images from the past.

The first degree—simultaneous dramaturgy.  Spectators create with the actors.

The second degree—image theater.  Spectators work directly with the actors to “speak” through the images of their bodies.

The third degree—forum theater. Spectators directly intervene in the dramatic action and act.

Fourth stage: The theater as discourse.  Provide simple forms of theater for the participants to create, discuss, and rehearse actions based on certain themes.

            Newspaper theater

            Invisible theater

            Photo-romance

            Breaking of repression

            Myth theater

            Trial theater

            Masks and rituals

These stages are essential to recreating theater as an artistic tool for the people. However, since many people are not “actors”, these stages in the sequence provided will empower the spectators to engage and begin to truly dialogue as a participant in theater.

In this section, Boal goes on to describe each of the elements listed above.  He describes techniques and provides anecdotal examples of how effortless and uncomplicated each can be.  Audience members are instantly engaged in creating the theatrical “performance” and are significant to the development of the piece. This interaction isn’t meant to be cathartic as Aristotle would surmise, nor is it a call to action, as Brecht would have one proceed.  It is a process with which participants can begin to explore their world, engage in dialogue about situations, and rehearse how to change what needs to be transformed.

As Boal summarizes his poetics of the oppressed, he states that it is “essentially the poetics of liberation: the spectator no longer delegates power to the characters either to think or act in his place.  The spectator frees himself; he thinks and acts for himself!  Theater is action!” (p. 155)

Theatre of the Oppressed Section 3

Theatre of the Oppressed—Augusto Boal

© 1974 © 1979 English Translation

Translation by Charles A. & Maria-Odilia Leal McBride

Section 3: Hegel and Brecht: The Character as Subject or the Character as Object?

            This section of Theatre of the Oppressed provides details of the differences of Hegel’s rationale of theater and Bertold Brecht’s position on theater as a catalyst for societal change.  Boal offers connections to what he has already presented as groundwork to lead to his analysis of how theater can function as a tool of liberation.

The “Epic” Concept

            The concept of something being epic traditionally follows an Aristotelian notion that through verse, epic includes duration of the action and imitates the exploits of characters of a superior type.  Hegel expands this belief and determines that epic is means to an end.  Theater will take spectators to that end because the “spirit is liberated from matter” (p. 84).  Theater is a truly cathartic medium.

            Brecht, on the other hand, considers epic as a contraposition to Hegel’s view in that theater is not cathartic and should not provide resolution.  Theater should present a means to inspire revolution and change within society.  

Types of Poetry in Hegel; Characteristics of Dramatic Poetry; Freedom of the Character-Subject

            In the next three sub-sections of his work, Boal details the specifics of Hegel’s theories of epic poetry as the basis for theater.  For Hegel, epic poetry presents a complete world in which action attains the form of objective which then creates an event.  The facts of such events are the main focus of the presentation of the material, with subjectivity being minimized.

            Lyric poetry, according to Hegel, is contrary to epic poetry in that it is subjective and dwells within ourselves.  It contains the emotional life of soul and supports “self-expression as its unique and indeed final end” (p. 87).

            Dramatic poetry is a combination of epic (objective) and lyric (subjective) nature, and presents its action in the moment the spectators witness it.  The action of epic poetry is recalling the past for the audience, where dramatic poetry transports the audience to the time and place of the action in order for the reliving of that action.  Because of this realization of dramatic poetry, the character, according to Hegel, is the complete subject of his actions.

            Boal continues by describing Hegel’s belief that for a character to be a subject, he must be truly free, with no limitations placed upon his actions.  There are three clarifications describing this theme of freedom:

1.      Animals are entirely reliant on their environment and are therefore not free. Man is not free in so much as he is an animal.  For man to exercise his freedom, he must overcome external limitations and this creates good material for drama.

2.      Members of a highly civilized society do not make good dramatic characters in that they are not free.  They are encumbered by many types of laws, customs, and traditions that do not allow them to express their freedom.

3.      Freedom is not a concept only in the physical sense, but also in the emotional realm of human behavior.

These types of characteristics are important in the creation of dramatic work in that the freedom of the character should demonstrate universal, rational, and significant events for human life.  Dramatic poetry should utilize concrete realities not abstract concepts, because theater deals with individuals and universalities.  Because of this, the “individual will of a character is the concretion of a moral value or of an ethical option” (p. 91).  Lastly, Boal reports that according to Hegel, for true tragedy to occur, the outcome pursued by the characters must be irreconcilable, otherwise the work is not tragedy but only a drama.

A Word Poorly Chosen; Does Thought Determine Being (or Vice Versa)?; Conflict of Wills of Contradiction of Needs?

            Bertolt Brecht regards theater in a very different context.  He sees character as the object that responds to social or economic forces rather than a subject guided by internal actions.  For Hegel, the subjectivity of theater produces the objectivity.  For Brecht, it is the opposite.

            Brecht’s poetics are squarely Marxist.  Boal states that for Marxist poetics (his term for Brecht’s position), social being conditions social thought, thus a “character’s social relations create the dramatic action” (p. 93).  Brecht’s work reflects this in that some of his writings are lyrical, some epic, and some dramatic.  Boal provides a listing of the differences (p. 95) of Brecht’s work and that of idealistic poetics.  Some of those differences include:

v     Thought determines being. (Idealistic) Social being determines thought. (Marxist)

v     The conflict of free will compels the dramatic action. (Idealistic)  Contradictions

of economic, social, or political forces propel the dramatic action. (Marxist)

v     Emotion. (Idealistic) Reason (Marxist)

v     At the end catharsis satisfies the spectator. (Idealistic) With knowledge gained, the spectator is driven to action. (Marxist)

v     Arousal of feelings. (Idealistic)  Demands decisions and action. (Marxist)

Boal continues with some examples of Brecht’s work which support his position on how and why characters behave the way they do.  He offers that due to the fact that people (thus characters) are social beings, they determine social thought.  Boal also submits that Hegel insists that conflict is a necessity of a moral nature, whereas Brecht states conflict is a social or economic obligation.  Brecht does not mean to say that an individual will not ever intervene in a situation, only that they are “never the determining factor of the fundamental dramatic action” (p. 101).

Empathy or What? Emotion or Reason?

            For Aristotle, empathy is the emotional relationship between characters and audience.  Through this relationship, the spectator can experience, vicariously, events which otherwise may be overwhelming.  With this connection, theater becomes a cathartic endeavor for the audience.

            Brecht, on the other hand, views the emotional connection as a means to offer understanding of the dianoia—the character’s thoughts and the spectator’s thoughts.  From this position, theater can assist in interpreting the world and exercise its responsibility of showing how the world can be transformed, thus provoking spectators to act.  What Brecht does not want is for “spectators to continue to leave their brains with their hats upon entering the theater” (p. 104).

Catharsis and Repose, or Knowledge and Action?

            Boal asserts that both Aristotle and Hegel see theater as a system that creates tumult from human passions and actions.  The process of pacifying the conflict created on stage purges the tragic flaw and equilibrium is re-established.  Brecht, however, views theater as a Marxist and therefore cannot agree that a work should end in repose.  It must demonstrate how society loses its equilibrium and how to quicken the transition.

            Brecht maintains that the actors must move from their “downtown stages” and venture into the neighborhoods where the people who can and are interested in changing society are.  Actors should exhibit images of social life that must be changed and provoke spectators to not accept repose but to act.  The belief is that once the information becomes knowledge, action for change can occur.

Theatre of the Oppressed Section 3 Reaction

Theatre of the Oppressed—Augusto Boal

© 1974 © 1979 English Translation

Translation by Charles A. & Maria-Odilia Leal McBride

Section 3: Hegel and Brecht: The Character as Subject or the Character as Object?

Reaction

            To create an art form to contribute to the populace and their need to process otherwise difficult subjects is what Aristotle, Machiavelli, and Hegel seem to propose.  The idea that one can vicariously manage content through theater and the characters on a stage is the accepted notion of what theater has become. The cathartic nature of theater for the spectator is a safe method for conveying information.

            It is easy to see Boal’s argument for the deficient use of theater in this manner.  When he presents Brecht’s philosophy on how drama should not be a release of emotion but a call to action on the part of the spectators, I see it as a noble position.  To truly utilize what was originally a venue of the people by the people would be “poetic justice” for the aristocrats who have taken theater away from the people.

            Much of what Boal presented forty years ago are things that I find still occur in our society today.  Someone identifies with his or her oppressors (those in control) because one day, he or she hopes to be in power.  Or another person acts against his or her own best economic interests because some day soon, he or she will have control over his or her own personal financial situation.

I find myself in agreement with Brecht—that theater should be a method to engage people to express themselves and to motivate them and others to change that in society which instigates oppression. Or even change society.  And while I agree with Brecht and Boal as far as theater being a setting that offers support for the populace to be inspired to act, I recognize that it would take a major shift in the structure of our society to give power to an art form to allow for change.  The idea of attending the theater has become so controlled by those in power for so long, that theater is seen as a means of  catharsis, not a means of fundamental change.

Theatre of the Oppressed

Theatre of the Oppressed—Augusto Boal

© 1974 © 1979 English Translation

Translation by Charles A. & Maria-Odilia Leal McBride

Section 2: Machiavelli and the Poetics of Virtù

            Augusto Boal continues his presentation by exploring the work of Machiavelli as it pertains to theatre and society. Machiavelli examined how the culture of his time influenced the direction and expression of theatre.

The Feudal Abstraction

           

            Boal begins by revisiting the views held by Aristotle and others that art will always establish a way to convey certain kinds of knowledge to the populace.  The content of the knowledge is based on the perspective of the artist or of the social sector where that artist is situated. The art is manipulated by those in power to maintain control.  Thus “dominant art will always be that of the dominant class, since it is the only class that possesses the means to disseminate it” (p. 53).  Theater is under more control than other arts due to its immediate contact with the public and its ability to persuade.

            Because of the self-sufficiency of the feudal manor and the rigid hierarchy within such estates, feudal art placed little value on what was new, but instead, worked to preserve what was old and traditional.  This preservation of custom was used to hinder society by perpetuating the existing system. Feudal art thus contained elements that depersonalized, deindividualized, and abstracted the content. Noblemen were able to use art to support the belief that they were of divine existence, and the Church utilized art to perpetuate its ideas, dogmas, commandments, and decisions. This system was effective because much of the populace were incapable of reading and received much of their information through their senses.

            The art of theater, like that of paintings, was also abstract in form and indoctrinating in content. Aristotelian tragedy became the perfect device for the social functions of theater. Because there was a set and expected framework for theater, it became a useful device to correct the thinking of men who would otherwise work to modify society. Through its cathartic function, theater offered purification of the populace. Feudal characters were abstractions of moral and religious values, and content of the plays themselves was both good and offered reward, or was bad and doled out punishment.

            Boal concludes this sub-section by pointing out that times change along with social and political systems. With the rise of commerce, feudal nobility diminished and the bourgeoisie class became robust. From this rise of this middle class of citizens, new ideas were acquired and transmitted along with new perspectives. Machiavelli was of this dynamic class and thus initiates the poetics of virtù.

The Bourgeois Concretion

            In the eleventh century, the development of commerce produced a methodic organization of human activity, which in turn contributed to the rise of the bourgeoisie class.  New inventions for domestic use as well as weapons of war required the individual ability and value of each man to become more significant than the social class to which one was born.  Even in religious disciplines, man’s relationship with God became one of debits and credits.  Offering to do charitable good deeds was a way to assure oneself of divine help.  The feudal system had been one of abstract ideas, whereas the bourgeois had brought about a focus on the more concrete and tangible aspects of life.

            Despite these changes, the bourgeois still held a disadvantage to the feudal lords.  According to Boal, the feudal lords’ positions originated from the idea that their power had been bestowed upon them by God.  The bourgeois only had “his enterprising spirit, his own value and ability” (p. 61).  Fate and good fortune had no bearing on his concrete circumstances of his position in the real world, but he could rely on his own virtù.

            For the most part, virtù was what the bourgeois employed to overcome obstacles placed before him due to his status in society.  This set of behaviors allowed him to disregard the past and to function in a concrete world. This became his praxis. Virtù and praxis were part of the changes brought about in response to the feudal system, but it was difficult to surmount some existing ideals.

Machiavelli was critical of the bourgeois for retaining much of the ideals of the feudal nobility.  According to him, the position of the bourgeois was weakened and delayed the creation of its own values.  The new class had to turn toward concrete reality in order to find new forms of art. Toleration of characters with the old values inherited from feudalism was self defeating.  In visual art as well as the theater, the bourgeois “needed to create live men, of flesh and blood, especially the ‘virtuous’ man” (p. 62).      When the bourgeois ceased to consider itself as subjugated and became conscious of its own power, it could use art to place man at the center of life. Boal cites the body of work created by Shakespeare as evidence of the coming of the individualized man in the theater. He continues by naming Shakespeare as the first bourgeois dramatist because he knew how to portray the basic characteristics of the new class by offering the example that the common people speak in prose and the nobility speak in verse. However, people of the common class remained in the background and passively accepted the change of masters because, as Machiavelli asserts, they believed their circumstances were going to improve. 

Machiavelli and Mandragola

            In the next sub-section of his text, Boal offers the work of Machiavelli’s Mandragola as an example of a play that is typical of the balance between abstraction and concretion when presenting the transition between feudal and bourgeois theater. Each of the characters described supports the positions Boal has previously illustrated.  He concludes that Mandragola relates to the audience in an intelligent manner through reason and thought.  Theater which directs its focus to the people must offer permanent clarity and appeal to the intelligence and sensitivity of the spectator.

Modern Reduction of Virtù

            The Shakespearean drama presented a double-edged sword as the bourgeois gained political power.  The dramatic character with liberation of thought that had achieved recognition in the theater could also motivate beyond the stage and threaten the newly acquired control.  Boal asserts that someone would need to step in and impose limitations upon the dramatic character without renouncing his recent freedom.  Hegel was the one to find this balance.

            Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, the German philosopher, offered that characters were the embodiment of freedom and should be allowed to demonstrate that freedom without hindrance.  This did not mean unbound to do as he pleased, but released to make concrete the abstract moral values of man.  Conflict is between characters who offer moral values and those who present their antithesis.  Through the action, balance can be restored.  This often occurred in Romanticism. Boal continues with the description of how Romanticism changed the feudal theme of the Last Judgment. Every man, regardless if his material possessions, holds the same values, the most important being spiritual freedom. He explains how, through characters offering a realism of abstract moral values, the bourgeois have utilized theater to establish their position in society.  Boal also states the need for another form of theater to arise: one “determined by a new class and which will dissent not only stylistically but in a much more radical manner” (p. 79).

Theatre of the Oppressed

Theatre of the Oppressed—Augusto Boal

© 1974 © 1979 English Translation

Translation by Charles A. & Maria-Odilia Leal McBride

Section 2: Machiavelli and the Poetics of Virtù

Reaction

            When society changes, it does so from within. It seems that the components of the structure in which people live are dependent upon who places them there and why.  The parts of a society can be small and affect only a handful of people or the components can be so large that the numbers of the populace that are impacted by these components are too many to count.

            Boal explains how in the eleventh century, the structure of the feudal system is the society. He describes how the arts are influenced by those creating and engaging in them and how they (the arts) are used to promote the on-going theories of the people in charge.  Machiavelli presents the transition between the abstract ideas of the feudal lords and the concrete concepts of the bourgeois and how that change impacted those involved. He points out that it is difficult for people under the control of others to not cling to the ideals of the masters.  I see that even today when the members of society work against their best interests and choose leaders who will keep them subjugated.

            Machiavelli names Shakespeare as a bourgeois dramatist based on the characters which inhabit his plays.  I agree to a point, but have to state that on close examination, all but a handful of the characters found in Shakespeare’s writings adhere to the ideals of the dominant society.  Those who are able to grow beyond such ideals are magical in nature and never really belonged to the mainstream society in the first place.

            For the arts in general, and theater specifically to offer a new structure for society and its members, I agree with Boal that there needs to be a fundamental change—in society.  The arts need to be accepted as a tool for guidance to change.  We cannot continue to perpetuate what has been handed to us.  We must look at where we are and use what we have generated from our own culture and develop change from there.

Theatre of the Oppressed

Theatre of the Oppressed—Augusto Boal

© 1974 © 1979 English Translation

Translation by Charles A. & Maria-Odilia Leal McBride

Section 1: Aristotle’s Coercive System of Tragedy: Part Two

In What Sense can Theater Function as an Instrument for Purification and Intimidation?

Boal begins this section describing how a city innately contains inequality throughout the populace, but no one wants the uneven circumstances to negatively affect them. There is an unspoken acceptance or capitulation of the hierarchy of status within a given community.  In his Poetics, Aristotle offered that tragedy (in the sense of theater), is repressive in function—along with politics and bureaucracy, customs and habits.  However, tragedy is also used to provoke catharsis.

The Ultimate Aim of Tragedy

            Aristotle wrote, according to Boal, a completely organic philosophy.  He maintains that within this philosophy, there are imprecise and fragmentary statements which should lead us to other texts in order to comprehend the original meaning.  Boal looks to S.H. Butcher to help clarify the Aristotelian concept of catharsis, and states that nature “tends toward certain ends; when it fails to achieve those objectives, art and science intervene” (p. 27).  The art of tragedy (theater) offers correction of mankind’s actions and this makes what Aristotle called catharsis.

            What is catharsis?  It is a correction, but what does it correct?  It is a purification, but what does it purify?  Butcher offers support in answering these questions by utilizing the work of Racine, Milton, and Jacob Bernays.

Racine:  Tragedy shows the passions as the cause of vice and we recognize vice and do not like the imperfection.  Racine goes on to emphasize the moral aspects of tragedy.  Where Aristotle differs from Racine is that he contends that the tragic hero should experience a radical change in the course of his life due to a weakness or error, not because of a vice.  Aristotle also states that the error or weakness be treated with some understanding.

Jacob Bernays: Bernays offered that catharsis should be considered a metaphor for a medical process that would have the same effects on the soul as does medicine on the body.  He suggests that because the Aristotelian model of theatre is the imitation of emotions that are at the heart of all men, the act of “exciting offers, afterward, a pleasant relaxation” (p. 28).  Bernays continues with the proposition that the stage offers a harmless outlet for the human instincts and vices which demand satisfaction.  These acts can be tolerated much more easily through theater than in real life.  Emotions of pity and fear do not manifest themselves in the tragic characters but in the spectators. He relates this back to Aristotle in recognizing that “something underserved happens to a character that resembles ourselves” (p. 30).

Milton: Boal offers that Milton presents much of the same vision as do the others, but adds that in the production of theater, the emotional acts are similar to those of the spectators.  This situation offers spectators a catharsis without having to directly confront their own emotions.

Boal states that Butcher concludes with one last concept of catharsis, based on Hippocrates.  Catharsis means the removal of a painful or disturbing component of the organism, purifying what remains.

            The reasoning at this point is that when man fails in his search for happiness and obedience to laws, the art of tragedy intercedes to correct the failure. Purification and catharsis offer a social solution.

A Short Glossary of Simple Words

            At this point in the text, Boal provides definitions regarding theatrical elements found in the roles of characters.

            Tragic hero:  Originally, the theatre was created by the people and many

contributed to the tragedy in the form of the chorus.  Thespis is credited for creating the protagonist and when he did, the structure of the theatre became aristocratic.  This character became the tragic hero and, according to Boal, appears “when the State begins to utilize the theater for the political purpose of coercion of the people” (p. 33).

Ethos: In a tragedy, the character will act and the performance presents the story.  The ethos is the action, and the dianoia is the justification of the action, the reason for the action.  Ethos is the sum total of the faculties, passions, and habits. 

Hamartia: All the passions and habits of the character must be good, except for one.  This is known as hamartia or the tragic flaw.  The tragic flaw must be destroyed so that the character’s ethos may conform to the societal ethos.

Empathy: In a performance, a relationship is established between the protagonist and the spectator.  Empathy is the emotional connection between these two and takes place in relation to what the character does—his ethos. 

Providing these definitions assist Boal in continuing his work.  These terms are used in the next section for Boal to make his points.

How Aristotle’s Coercive System of Tragedy Functions

            As the play begins, the hero will demonstrate a tragic flaw in his behavior, which may be the same tragic flaw within the spectator.  Thus, empathy is established.  Then, suddenly, there is an igniting incident. Something happens to change the status quo of the hero.  Aristotle, in the Poetics, calls this peripeteia—a dramatic change in the character’s destiny. As the story progresses, the hero must confront his hamartia in what Aristotle called anagnorisis—a recognition and explanation of his flaw.  There is then the terrible end to the play which is the catastrophe. When this ending occurs, the spectator is presented with the consequences of the tragic flaw and thus purgation of the weakness.

            Boal continues by describing how peripeteia, anagnorisis, and catastrophe have the clear goal of provoking catharsis through three stages:

            First Stage: Stimulation of hamartia

            Second Stage: The character recognizes his error—anagnorisis.

            Third Stage: Catastrophe—the character suffers the consequences of his error.

            Catharsis: The spectator, frightened by the spectacle of the catastrophe, is

purified of his hamartia.

These stages are seen as a way for the aristocracy to perpetuate behaviors wanted and needed by the populace.  As Aristotle breaks down the function of tragedy (theater) and notes that it is not political, Boal points out that the very steps Aristotle describes are political and that theater is the “most perfect artistic form of coercion” (p. 39).

Conclusion

            According to Boal, the Aristotelian coercive system of tragedy is a powerful system of intimidation, with its basic task being the “purgation of all antisocial elements” (p. 46).  He continues by stating that this system cannot be implemented during a revolutionary period due to the need for clearly defined social ethos. A society in transition does not have established mores or ethos, and thus the cathartic nature of theater is ineffective.

            Aristotle created a very powerful purgative system to eradicate all that is not commonly accepted, including revolution, before it takes control.  It is designed to monitor the individual and to condition him or her to the status quo.  If this situation is the goal of theater, then the Aristotelian model serves the purpose well.  If the intention is for the spectator to transform society, to employ revolutionary action, then an alternative poetics must be found.

Theatre of the Oppressed

Theatre of the Oppressed—Augusto Boal

© 1974 © 1979 English Translation

Translation by Charles A. & Maria-Odilia Leal McBride

Section 1: Aristotle’s Coercive System of Tragedy: Part Two

Reaction

            The detail which Boal provides in his layering of Aristotle’s thoughts and reflections is effective. His structure offers a strong basis for his contention that theatre is a device with which the aristocracy—those in power—can control society.  There are very clear roles that are assumed, not only by the characters of a play, but by all the participants, actors and audience alike.  Since Aristotle’s time, the model has been perpetuated and there seems to be a comfort in the recognition of the roles one must assume when engaged in theatre.

What Boal has offered in describing the Aristotelian system of coercive tragedy is the model of theatre most familiar with anyone who has studied the craft.  Yes, theatre is meant to convey a story/topic/theme.  Yes, theatre is meant to elicit a reaction from the audience (spectators).  Yes, theatre is even meant to be cathartic.  It is supposed to offer an opportunity for the spectator to question and consider the world through a new or different lens with minimal risk needed to act. Boal, in his summation of section one, describes why a new model or poetic should be introduced in order for theatre as a devise for societal transformation to be powerful.

As long as we are conditioned to expect the structure that Aristotle presents, we will have a difficult time regaining what the art of theatre was originally intended to achieve. Theatre was meant to be an all-inclusive art in which all people in a community had a voice in the story, the direction of the content, and the outcome of what was being presented. In reflecting on the traditional theatrical model presented, it is easy to see how the spectators have become passive.  The performers are doing all the work!  And they are stage-managed by forces that control the message and how it is communicated. In the continuation of his work, I expect Boal to provide alternative views to the Aristotelian formula.  From these alternatives, there is the prospect of new strategies for our society to recapture the previous intent of theatre.