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.