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.