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).