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.

Theatre of the Oppressed—Augusto Boal Part One, Section One

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

The first section Augusto Boal presents in Theatre of the Oppressed describes how early philosophers considered the connection between theatre and politics.  He mentions that some regarded the arts and specifically theatre as an act of pure contemplation.  Others felt that theatre was a vision of society in transformation and thus is political because it can demonstrate the implementation of change or how change can be delayed.  Boal continues by mentioning Plato’s position that poets should be banished from society because “poetry only makes sense when it exalts the figures and deeds that should serve as examples” (as quoted by Boal, p. xii).  He further describes how Plato views theater as an imitation of things in the world and the world is just an imitation of ideas, thus theater is just an imitation of an imitation.

Boal then asserts that Aristotle held the same position as Plato.  He states that Aristotle favored the study of poetry and politics as separate endeavors due to the nature of them having their own laws and different purposes and aims.  However, Boal maintains that Aristotle actually creates a powerful poetic-political system for the intimidation of the spectator in order for that person to eliminate negative or illegal tendencies. Theater is a catharsis.

Art Imitates Nature

           

Aristotle felt that art imitates nature, not in the sense that it mimics things in the world, but that it “re-cerates” nature.  In this sense, art utilizes the creative principal of created things.  Artistic items are not exact reproductions, but contain much of the same tenets as the original so as to impart knowledge and understanding about that item. Boal describes ideas of the thinkers of Aristotle’s time and how Aristotle may have developed this point of view. Boal concludes this sub-section of section one with the idea of knowledge and how it is presented.  He suggests that through dialectics and the debate of ideas knowledge ascends.

What is the Meaning of “Imitation”?

            Boal further depicts how Aristotle may have reconciled his position on the arts and society with that of his contemporaries. He introduced new concepts in the perception that substance is the enduring unity of matter and form.  In tragedy (Aristotle’s characterization for theater), matter made up of words and form is the sum of the meaning and purpose of those words.  Ideas (form) are the dynamic principle of matter.  According to Boal, for Aristotle, matter is pure potential and form is pure act and to imitate is to recreate the “internal movement of things toward their perfection” (p. 8).  Boal goes on to point out that the actor must portray men as they should be, not as they are.

What, then, is the Purpose of Art and Science?

            Nature cultivates perfection, but does not always achieve it. In art and science, the re-creation of ideas allows for the correction of nature where it has failed.  For example men know illness and war which is not the perfection nature seeks. However, these can be re-created through theater and corrected, using the suggestions of nature itself.

Major Arts and Minor Arts

           

            Boal states that the arts and sciences do not exist in isolation and are actually interrelated according to their characteristics.  These entities hold a hierarchy based on the magnitude of functions.  Thus there are major arts and minor arts that co-exist.  There is the interrelated disposition of a painting (a major art) to manufacturing paints and paint brushes (minor arts).  The major arts are contained in a larger forum, a sovereign art, which Boal maintains possess laws which rule over the relations of men, and therefore is politics.

What does Tragedy Imitate?

            Tragedy imitates not simply human activities but human acts.  Aristotle considered imitation as man’s actions determined by his rational soul.  This rational soul can be divided into three areas: faculties, passions, and habits.  Faculties are those things a man is able to do, even though he may not do those things.  Those that are realized are passions, with passions being concrete acts.  When passions are constant in a man, they become habits.  Aristotle believed that the actions in which man engages are for the purpose of good and that the supreme good of man is happiness.

What is Happiness? And What is Virtue?

            Aristotle illustrates three types of happiness—material possessions, glory, and virtue. The first description of items and enjoyment of them are what contribute to the happiness of the average person. He said that material happiness is not deserving of being studied through tragedy. On a second level, happiness is found through glory.  The behaviors of a man which define glory are not the cause of the happiness, but the recognition from others on the behaviors of man is what creates happiness. Lastly, on what Aristotle felt was the superior level of happiness, man will act purely on what is right and does not require the approval of others.  Thus, when tragedy imitates actions of the rational soul, he says that man’s search for happiness is to search for virtuous behavior.

Aristotle provides several examples, but asserts that somewhere in the middle of extreme behaviors is where virtue can be found.  Virtue is not a natural behavior for man; it must be learned as man can cultivate habits which will allow for the development of virtuous behaviors.  The promotion of these habits should begin in childhood and learned from elders who have also been instructed in virtuous behaviors.

Necessary Characteristics of Virtue

            Boal continues his stance on the Aristotelian structure of virtue by detailing the four conditions of human action which must be in place for someone to be considered virtuous.  The first condition is willfulness.  Willfulness must not be accidental but a voluntary act initiated by the person. Freedom is the second condition of virtue, where someone will act without external coercion.  Virtue is a free behavior.  The third condition is knowledge.  The person who acts has available to him or her choices whose terms are known.  Finally, the fourth condition is constancy.  Since virtue (and vice) is based in habits and not just passions, virtuous behavior must be consistent. 

            In this section, Boal offers instances of the behaviors of characters from literature. For example, Shakespeare’s Othello does not know the truth of his wife Desdemona’s behavior.  He has been wrongly informed that she was unfaithful to him, and, in a jealous rage, he kills her.  It is not the act of killing her that is his tragic flaw, but his pride and knowledge that murder is an unacceptable behavior that is Othello’s tragedy.  Habitual behaviors cause the tragedy of the characters, not the result of their behaviors.

What is Justice?

            Aristotle proposes that what is just is that which is equal and what is unequal is unjust. However, he sees these positions in the reality of what already exists and simply accepts them.  Boal points out that Aristotle does not contemplate any possibility of transforming already existing inequalities and thus allow for man to act virtuously.  From these inequalities, Boal proposes that justice is not about equality, but rather about proportionality.  The criteria that determines proportionality is based on the system in which if functions. The conclusion Boal conveys regarding Aristotle and tragedy at this point is:

            Tragedy imitates the actions of man’s rational soul, his passions turned into

habit, in his search for happiness, which consists in virtuous behavior, remote from the extremes, whose supreme good is justice and whose maximum expression is the Constitution (p. 23-24).

Boal states that works for those who make the laws, but what about those who do not create them?  They rebel, not accepting the inequality presented to them within the given reality.

Theatre of the Oppressed—Augusto Boal

Theatre of the Oppressed—Augusto Boal

© 1974 © 1979 English Translation

Translation by Charles A. & Maria-Odilia Leal McBride

Section One, Part One, Reaction

            Augusto Boal presents the Aristotelian structure connecting the arts and politics in a manner that is clear and thorough.  He offers the basics of the distinctive qualities of the arts and builds the explanation of Aristotle’s philosophy that assists in following along.  Because Boal’s position is one of theater and its place in our society, he offers examples from timeless dramatic stories to support the understanding of his reader.

            This first section of Boal’s work is written in sub-sections, allowing Aristotle’s points to be considered on their own merits. Each sub-section builds on the one before it, leading the reader carefully through what might otherwise be intimidating material. I found this form accessible for me as I have never really studied philosophy.  I am in agreement with what I have read. 

            I do find that as Boal presents the human condition according to Aristotle, there are many parallels to what is currently in our society.  These are not limited to theatre.  When Boal describes happiness and virtue, I cannot help but think that many people in our community have yet to move away from material happiness—what Aristotle felt was not even deserving of being studied through tragedy (theatre).  It causes me to feel somewhat dejected, because humankind does not seem to have progressed much since the days of Ancient Greece.

What I do find somewhat tentative about my position is that I agree with the majority of this philosophy.  I question whether or not I am limiting myself to Boal’s work which is based on Western philosophic interpretations of theater.  Is there perhaps some Asian or African “Boal” who may offer another perspective on theater?  If so, will that work support and confirm what my fundamental beliefs are about theatre or will I be given another perspective that may leave me with more questions?

Theatre of the Oppressed Forward and Reaction

Theatre of the Oppressed—Augusto Boal

© 1974 © 1979 English Translation

Translation by Charles A. & Maria-Odilia Leal McBride

Forward

Note: After studying theatre at Columbia University and through his work at Arena Stage in São Paolo, Brazil, Augusto Boal developed Theatre of the Oppressed. He was influenced by his Brazilian countryman and friend, Paulo Freire, and based his theatrical method on Freire’s Pedagogy of the Oppressed.

In the forward of Theatre of the Oppressed, Augusto Boal asserts that theater is an activity of man and all the activities of man are political, so theater is political.  This position is the point from which all his contentions about the structure of theater are based.

He prompts us to remember that theater began with people freely singing and that the theatrical performance was created by and for the populace. “It was a celebration in which all could participate freely” (p.ix). All people could be a part of the event and contribute in ways that were meaningful to them and that supported the efforts of the group as a whole.

Later, the aristocracy gained control over theater and divisions were established.  Those separations included certain people on stage who were allowed to act, while the rest of the people would remain seated as spectators, receptive to the performance, but passive to its creation.  The aristocracy also included the tenet that the spectacle would reflect the dominant ideology, with some of the actors portraying the protagonists—the aristocracy and the rest of the performers would be the chorus. Boal lays this groundwork to introduce Aristotle’s coercive system of tragedy which explains this type of theater.

After the aristocracy’s influence on theater came the bourgeoisie who changed the nature of the protagonists.  No longer were they objects which embodied moral values, but multidimensional subjects and exceptional individuals, still separated from the people as new aristocrats. This perspective, Boal offers, is that of the poetics of virtù of Machiavelli.

Boal continues to lay out his thinking by introducing Bertolt Brecht. Brecht’s reaction to Machiavelli’s poetics was to take the concept of character as absolute subject as theorized by Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel and alter and restore the qualities of an object within those characters.  Only this time, characters are objects of social forces—social beings that determine thought.

Once these philosophic positions have been made, Boal completes the forward by highlighting what was happening in Latin America at the time of his writing.  He mentions how barriers created by the ruling class were being destroyed and how, in theater, that model was being torn down through the concept that “all must act, all must be protagonists in the necessary transformations of society” (p. x).  He continues on to describe that all must be the chorus and the protagonists simultaneously.  He calls this system poetics of the oppressed.

Reaction

            The late Augusto Boal has been a compelling personality in theatre for years.  Only recently have I made it a priority to read Theatre of the Oppressed completely, rather than excerpts and interpretations from others on Boal’s work.  From the forward, I realize that reading this text will be less of a challenge for me that reading Freire’s work.  However, mentioning philosophers whose names I recognize but whose work is new to me will provide me an opportunity to reflect not only on Boal, but connections at a more human level.

            Throughout the short forward, Boal presents a general progression of not only theatre, but of society.  The connections between theatre and society (and politics) he introduces make the structure of theatre and its evolution clear to me.  I am eager to explore the details of what he has presented.

            The one thing that remains at the back of my mind is that Boal has submitted for consideration the relationship of western theatre and western society/politics.  I question the development of the theatrical art form in cultures other than the one with which I am a product and most familiar.  Is that other development the same?  Did the “aristocracy” in other cultures commandeer theatre to control the populace and further the political ambitions of a select few?  Perhaps my knowledge of other forms of theatre is limited and I will need a different source of material to explore those questions. 

Pedagogy of the Oppressed--responses to responses

I can’t seem to figure out how to respond on the blog to responses to my postings, so Im am just going to post.

Pedagogy of the Oppressed—Preface

Blog Response

Again a great question about sectarianism. There has been a pattern of revolutionaries replacing the oppressors in the world.

I agree that there are revolutions happening around the world, but it seems that in our country, many of the oppressed don’t see their situation and are in agreement with their oppressors.  They seem to think that continuing the status quo is the path to their liberation.  How do we overcome that?

Pedagogy of the Oppressed—Forward

Blog Response

Your recognition of your position of privilege is one I have often considered myself. And the positionality of many of our students is also privileged, so I don't think that Friere's pedagogy can just be transported into an American setting.

But as one of being in the position of privilege, I’m feeling I have an obligation to do what I can to implement and advocate for Freire’s pedagogy—it’s just that much more difficult because I feel like a loner.  Many teachers seem to think that if children conform to the curriculum and expectations presented by the “powers that be”, the students will be successful.  That’s scary!

Pedagogy of the Oppressed—Chapter 1

Blog Response

It seems, in this country, that many people don't even recognize their oppression. You said that Friere defined oppression as one group having control over another. Who is oppressing whom? How do we recognize oppressors? If the oppressors suffer also, how can they be shown that they are oppressors in a way that liberates them and doesn't just evoke their deeper entrenchment in their ways?

I am not sure I can explicitly identify the oppressors—the roles change depending upon the contextual situation.  It does seem that when the “layers” are peeled back and we get to the core of any contextual situation, it is a financial rationale as to who is oppressing whom.  Perhaps that is because, in a financial situation, tangibles are what is negotiated.  When we start to look at knowledge, understanding, and emotional investments, they can quickly be diminished and squelched because there is rarely a physical record of such investments.  Freire even mentions (not in chapter one) that we are humans and can produce documentation and act upon historical events—and if we don’t reflect upon these events, oppression is easily generated.

As to how to get the oppressors to recognize their own oppression—that’s the big question!  I think with power comes oppression, but also ego.  One needs to recognize his or her own humanity and humble him or herself to begin to work for self-liberation as well as the freedom of others.

Pedagogy of the Oppressed—Chapter 1 Reaction

Blog Response

So, as a woman, you don't think you have experienced oppression?
As a teacher, you don't feel oppressed?

Great questions—and they were in my mind as I responded to Chapter One.  Have I experienced oppression—on a personal level, absolutely.  As a child, the adults in my life told me what to do—parents, teachers, others—and I was the compliant kid.  Whatever made the adults in my life happy, I was glad to do it.  I know I had my moments where I said to myself “I need to do this for me or for others around me”, but I never saw that as a result of being oppressed.  Being the middle class, white female child in American society, I was the model for what the oppressor wanted of the children.  As a woman, I’ve easily fill the expected role.  I don’t want to in the sense that my gender shouldn’t be the first thing society will relate to regarding me, but there are not the avenues for me to work to enact change.  Our culture in this country is still one of middle-aged, white males (and male-mindsets) being the oppressors and has been for centuries.

Because of what was modeled for me—and that I was never asked about or shown alternatives—I was able to easily replicate that as a teacher.  However, I think my true education came about my first year of teaching with Native American kids.  They certainly were oppressed and through dialogue with a colleague who saw the oppression (Freire would be proud), I began to recognize the actions I used that contributed to the oppression of my students.  Yet after 22 years of teaching, I am still trying to find my voice so that I can stand up to the oppression of myself and my students.  And it is difficult.  Many colleagues in education do not recognize that what they are engaged in is oppression—both producing and receiving. There can be many reasons why, but I think the biggest is the tangible, financial (and egotistical) reason for not recognizing the reality of teaching.  It is not an easy endeavor to work to enact change when others are not ready to see the need—kind of lonesome.

Pedagogy of the Oppressed—Chapter 2

Blog Response

I have enjoyed your summary so far. You are giving me a great refresher course in Friere. I do think we need to think really hard about the kinds of problems we need to pose in this country. As you read on, think about the essence of his pedagogy, rather than just treating his pedagogy like a program. I look forward to swapping ideas with you. You might want to look up some Frierian lesson plans on line and see what you think.

I don’t like the thought of Freire’s work being considered a “program”.  It is definitely a prospect of what it means to be a decent human being.  There are so many variables that influence oppression—not just educational, but political and social standings, that to minimize Freire’s work into a curriculum that can be followed in a classroom is oppressive in and of itself.

So what do we do with his work?  Well, we’ve had 40+ years and not much has changed.  We seem so entrenched with our attitudes and roles in society that oppression has been denied.  There are people who recognize it but really don’t do anything about it.  I do try to consider the voices of some people who are in the public eye and trying to enact change, but these people are labeled as “subversive” and “radical” because the majority—those in power—don’t or refuse to recognize their own oppression.

As far as lesson plans and such on line, I am actually eager to read a second book (and new to me) by Freire titled Teachers as Cultural Workers.  I am afraid that if I look at lesson plans, I may have the same reaction that I have when a “new” teaching strategy is presented to me, and that is, “but do you know my students and what they need?”  Perhaps my readings on Theatre of the Oppressed by Boal and how they relate to Freire’s work will help clarify my own journey as a teacher.

Pedagogy of the Oppressed—Chapter 2 Reaction

Blog Response

So, how do we enact such change when "fidelity police" patrol our halls to see if we are following the programs that the district bought?

My first response is that we lock the doors and not let the fidelity police in…but that is rather flip and unrealistic.

But that is an excellent question—and one I am still trying to explore.  There needs to be a monumental paradigm shift, not only in education, but in our society.  To keep doing things using new materials but the same oppressive model will not be effective.

Maybe the answer lies in the “training” of new teachers.  Maybe teachers and administrators need to be made aware of how they are oppressed through dialogue in the Freireian sense. Testing as a measure of what is known needs to be completely tossed out, and new definitions of what is success and how students (or any of us for that matter) demonstrate that achievement needs to be initiated. If I had concrete solutions, I’d voice them from the highest, most influential platform I could find. We are no longer an agrarian society, nor are we an industrial society.  We have developed into an informational society with the agrarian/industrial/white middle class mindset of education.