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.
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).
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment