Download Theatre as critique - Justus-Liebig

TheatreasCritique
CongressoftheSocietyforTheatreStudies,FrankfurtandGießen,3.-6.November2016
Organisers:TheInstituteforAppliedTheatreStudies,JustusLiebigUniversityGießen(ProfessorDr
GeraldSiegmund),andtheTheatreStudiesChairoftheInstituteforTheatre,FilmandMediaStudies,
GoetheUniversityFrankfurtamMain(ProfessorDrNikolausMüller-Schöll),incollaborationwiththe
HessianTheatreAcademy(HTA),theFrankfurtLABandtheKünstlerhausMousonturm.
Undertheheading“TheatreasCritique”,theorganisersofthe13thCongressoftheSocietyfor
TheatreStudiesinviteresearcherstoexaminetheatreasacriticalpractice.Withthecrisisofthe
classicalgroundingsofboththeatreandcritiqueinmind,thecongressaimsatareconsiderationof,
ontheonehand,thehistory,theoryandissuesoftheatreand,ontheother,theconceptof
critique.Attheheartofthedebate,therefore,isnotjustthesubjectmatteroftheatrecritiquebut
rathercritiqueitself.Plenaryspeechesandshortercontributionson8differentsubjectareaswill
becomplementedbyperformativeformats,visitstothetheatre,talksandsceniccontributions
fromstudentsoftheHessianTheatreAcademy(HTA).
Onequalityofthefiguresofthoughtreoccurringthroughoutthediscourseoftheoccidentaltheatre
isthatthistheatre–especiallywhereitdealswithaspectsofthepoliticalbutalsowithsocial
practicesandtradition–canbeseenasacriticalexaminationofthattradition.Theatreascritiqueis
arevisionofdecisionsmadeelsewhere,anegotiationofthemythspickedupuponinthetheatre,of
historicaleventsandofprocesses.ItisascenicarticulationofanItshouldbedifferent(TheodorW.
Adorno)–evenwhenthereisnoapparentalternativetothatwhichisbeingpropagatedastheone
andonlysolution.Philosophers,churchdignitaries,dogmatistsandguardiansofvirtuehostiletothe
theatrehaveallcontributedtothisviewofthetheatre–thosewhofearthesubversivepowerofthe
stage,whoseektodemonisethetheatreanditspractitioners–ashavethosewhospeakoutin
favourofthetheatre,whoinitseeameanstocriticisebothpersonalandsocialtransgressions,an
institutionthatisabletounsettleauthoritiesthathavebeenconstitutedelsewhere,thatcancriticise
untenableideologicalpositionsanddissolvepatternsoforderanddoctrinesofanykind.Theatre–in
accordancewithaviewwidelyhelduntilrecentlybytheatrepractitionersandcommentators–isa
criticalpractice.
Thisviewhasveryrecentlyfounditselfonshakyground.Ithasbeenradicallyquestionedbytwo
schoolsofthought,bothwithregardtotheconceptoftheatrethatitidealisesaswellasinrelation
totheoftenalltoosimpledefinitionoftheterm‘critique’.
–Thenotionofthetheatreasacriticalentityisidealistic,asitrendersacertainconceptoftheatre
absolute.Itconcealsthematerialconditionsoftheatreaswellasits,atbest,indirectlycritical
purposesofentertainment,pleasureandcheerfuleveningactivity.Onanindividuallevel,itputs
asidethesatisfactionofone’sownnarcissismfrequentlyconnectedwiththetheatre,and,onan
institutionallevel,itignoresallsortsofaimspursuedwiththetheatre.Moreover,criticaltheatre–
thereincomparablewithpoliticaltheatre–mustaskitselfifitscritique,asarule,islittlemorethana
kindofpreachingtotheconverted.Itsreferencestoitsowncriticalpotencyseemtoself-legitimise
aninstitutionthatnotinfrequentlyreaffirmsandsolidifiesnorms–preciselyinthecriticalmode.On
theotherhand,thatwhichmarkstheatreasanautonomousartformunderminestheheteronomous
aimsitfollows,includingcritique.Thus,perhapsbehindtheconceptoftheatreasacriticalpractice,
therelieshiddenachargedrelationshipwhosetwopolesaretheatreandcritique.
–Additionally,thegenerallyacceptedideaoftheatreascritiqueseemstoosimplewithregardtothe
conceptofcritiqueperpetuatedwithinthisidea,whichhasbeenradicallyshakeninthelastfew
decades,andnotwithoutreason.WereferheretotheradicalcriticismoftraditionalMarxist
ideologicalcritiqueundertakenbyAdorno/MaxHorkheimerintheDialecticofEnlightenment,which
Adornoonceagaintakesupinhisoft-citedessay“CulturalCriticismandSociety”.Secondly,webear
inmindFoucault’sgenealogyofcritique,whichhecarriesoutasaproponentof,ontheonehand,
desubjugationinrelationtoformsoftheartofgoverninghumanbeingsand,ontheotherhand,of
therejectionofeveryfundamentalistcritique,whichJudithButlerhastakenupinmorerecenttimes.
Allthreehaveenquiredintothefoundationsonwhichcritiqueisbased,aswellasthepossibilityof
post-fundamentalistcritique(Butler).Thetaskofshakingthefoundations,forwhichcriticaltheory
andpost-structuralismbothstand,affects,astheyillustrate,notleastalltraditionalformsofeven
proto-totalitariancritique.
OnlyonesentencefromAdorno’sessay“CulturalCriticismandSociety”isusuallycited–theonethat
hasbeendeclareda“dictum”,accordingtowhichitisbarbaric“towriteapoemafterAuschwitz.”In
thecontinuationofthisthought,Adornomakesitclearthat“this”,alsocorrodes“eventhe
knowledgeofwhyithasbecomeimpossibletowritepoetrytoday.”(Adorno1981,34)Ininitially
surprisingunisonwithMartinHeidegger’selaborationsonthenatureofthemoderntechnology
establishedatthebeginningofthe17thcenturyas“Ge-stell”(Heidegger1991,32),Adornospeaks
aboutthe“absolutereification”,“whichpresupposedintellectualprogressasoneofitselements
[and]isnowpreparingtoabsorbthemindentirely”.(Ibid.)“Criticalintelligencecannotbeequalto
thischallengeaslongasitconfinesitselftoself-satisfiedcontemplation.”(Ibid.)MichelFoucaultand
JudithButlertakeupthis“Leftistcriticaltradition”whentheyassignthecriticthe“doubletask”of
showing“howknowledgeandpowerworktoconstituteamoreorlesssystematicwayofordering
theworldwithitsown‘conditionsofacceptabilityofasystem,’butalso‘tofollowthebreaking
pointswhichindicateitsemergence.’”(Butler2001)
Inthestrictsenseoftheterm,critiqueiscloselyassociatedwiththeEnlightenment.Inallusionto
ImmanuelKant,Foucaultdefinescritiqueas“theartofnotbeinggovernedquitesomuch.”(Foucault
1997,29)Usingone’sownreasontoaskthequestionofhowonewouldlikenottobegovernedor,
moreprecisely,notgoverned“likethatandatthatcost”(ibid.)meansusingone’sreasoninthe
senseofcriticisingthegivenstateofaffairs.Thus,Foucaultunderstandscritiqueasanobjectionto
clerical,stateandparentallaws,andthereforeasafathomingoftheboundariesofgovernability.
“[C]ritiquewillbetheartofvoluntaryinsubordination,thatofreflectedintractability.Critiquewould
essentiallyinsurethedesubjugationofthesubjectinthecontextofwhatwecouldcall,inaword,the
politicsoftruth.”(Ibid.,32)Inasmuchascritiqueinitsresistanceto“everygovernment”“[puts]
forthuniversalandindefeasiblerights”(ibid.,30),itissubjecttotheverysamedangerthatAdorno
andHorkheimerdescribeinDialecticofEnlightenment.TherationalityoftheEnlightenment,
unenlightenedintermsofitsownlimits,willruntheriskofdeterioratingbackintoitssupposed
opposite,themyth,orofdegeneratingintoinstrumentalreason.Furthermore,critiqueseemsto
haveimplicitlyandcontinuouslyconducteditselfinrelationtoanormthatitkeepsupexnegativo,
evenwhenitsetsouttoworkitthroughandsuspendit.Thisalsoposesthequestionofwhichclaim
tovaliditycritiquecanhaveatall,ifitisalwaysinachargedrelationshipbetweenthegeneral,which
mustdeliverthestandardsofcritique,andtheparticular,whichreceivesspecificcriticism.Towhich
normativityiscritiqueattachedexplicitlyorimplicitlyandhowisthisattachmentproblematised?
Alongsideitsrelationshiptonormativity,everyformofcritiqueisaccompaniedbythepotentialofa
utopiaofsomekind.Thosewhocriticiseappealatleastimplicitlytosomethingbetter,toanother,
evenifitisnotthetaskofcritiquetodevelopuniversallyvalidalternativesorsolutionstothatwhich
itiscriticising.Ifcritiqueinevitablydrawsupanother,howcanitpreventitselffromterrorisingthat
whichresistsitsideas?Howcancritiquepreventitselffrombecominganotherofthe“great
narratives”(Lyotard)endinginterrorandcatastrophe,likethegreatnarrativesofthe19thcentury
thatLyotardwarnedagainst?
Critiqueopensupaspectrumoftensionsbetweenthenormanditsdegeneration,thegeneraland
theparticular,theutopiaandthegiven.Fromthis,centralobservationscanbederivedwithviewto
artisticpracticesandthetheatre.ThequestionthatJudithButlerposes,pickinguponFoucault’s
definitionofcritique,isthatofthepossibilityof“desubjugation”andthusthetransformationof
conditions.Howcancritiquelauncha“desubjugation”andthusa“desubjectivisation”,considering
thatsubjectivityisnotpossiblewithoutsubjugation?Foucaultsubstitutesthismysteriousagentwith
the“originaryfreedom”ofthehumanbeing,whichhecannotground,butwhichserveshim,
accordingtoButler,asanecessityofthinking–placinga“notknowing”insideofdiscourse(Butler
2001,18),settingtheconditionsandthesubjectitselfinmotion.Freedomisapurelystrategicor
even,asFoucaultsays,fictionalpresumptionthathasveryrealconsequencesforthesubject,sinceit
producesactualfreedoms.Foucault’sdescriptionofcritiqueas“art”is–againstthebackgroundof
thistrainofthought–morethanjustarhetoricalwayofspeaking.Instead,itisdirectedatthecore
ofthematter:Critique,which“risksone’sveryformationasasubject”(ibid.),isanaestheticpractice.
Asanaestheticpracticeitevokesthatwhichitrisksandrisksthatwhichitevokes.The“natural
freedom”ofthehumanbeingisitsaestheticfreedom.Thisisaccompaniedbythequestionof
whethercritiqueasapracticeisfirstandforemostaquestionoftheindividual–oftheindividual
artist,whoinhisorheruniquetheatresetshimorherselfinoppositiontotraditionalformsand
entrenchedinstitutionalprocesses.Thisinvolves,inButler’ssense,anethicsofcriticalpractice,for
whichtheindividualmusttakeonresponsibility.
Inthissense,theatreasartisacriticalpracticebecauseitisapracticethatsuspendstruths.
Criticisingtheconditionsisthusnotprimarilydependentonacertaincontentthatthetheatre
negotiatesbutratherliesinthewaythatthetheatreitselfexists.Thetaskofthecritiqueofthe
Enlightenmentisto“[havean]ideaofourknowledgeanditslimits”(Foucault1997,35)andthusthe
limitsofknowledge,powerandthesubject.Howdoesthischallengethelimitsofknowledge?Which
strategiesemphasiseitsconstitutiveconditionsandfractures?Whichroledoaffective,emotional,
corporealoridiosyncraticelementsplay?Whichroledoesmaterialityplayinrelationtothe
rationalityofcritique?Whatwouldanotherformofcritiquelooklike–onethatisnotleftexclusively
tothediscretionoftherationalityofreason,asKantwantedit?
Inoppositiontothetwofold,radicalquestioningofthelegitimacyoftheatreascritiqueisan
increasinglymoreurgentquest,aboveallsincetheturnofthemillennium,fornewformsofcritical
practiceinthetheatre,performanceandactionart.Theatreasacriticalpracticeisdrivenbythewish
notjusttorelatetorealityinthemodusofacontemplativedoubling,butrathertoasserttheatreas
acriticalexaminationofuntenableconditions,policiesandnormalisations,asanalternativeconcept
toexistingrealities,asiteforprotest,politicalinterventionandutopia.Withoutforgettingthe
aporiasoftheclassicalgroundingofcritiqueandwithviewtothequestionabilityoftraditionaland
contemporaryapproachesincriticaltheatretoday,thecongresswilldiscussthequestionofhowwe
canreconceivetheatrecritique,understoodinadoublesense:Howdoestheatrecriticise?Which
kindofcritiquecouldbeformulatedwithviewtotoday’stheatrepractices?
ThesequestionscanbediscussedinvarioussectionsattheCongressoftheSocietyforTheatre
Studies.Thefollowingthematicemphasesarethinkable:
1.Criticalpracticesincontemporarytheatre
Anumberofdifferentpracticesincontemporarytheatreseethemselvesascritical.Butwhatisbeing
criticisedconcretely,bywhichmeans,withwhichrightandonwhichbasis?Whicheffectorpotency
canbedescribed?Whichrealityrunscountertotheseapproaches?Howdoesthecritiquearticulated
onthelevelofreferentialitybehaveinrelationtoitsperformance?Whatdotheformsofproduction
andtheorganisationofcriticaltheatrepracticeslooklikeandhowaretheyrelatedtothepositions
arguedonthelevelofcontentandcriticisedobject?Whatisevenbeingcriticisedandfromwhich
perspective?
2.Critiqueandnormativity
Ifcritiquealwaysmaintainsarelationshiptothenormthatitcriticises,thequestionmustbeposed
aboutthenorm-stabilisingtendencyoftheatricalpractices.Theatreiscalledintimeandtimeagainin
timesofcrisis,inordertodefuseconflictsthroughnegotiationandrepresentation.Theatrehasa
valvefunctionlikeatthecarnival;itcreatesfreedomstothinkandact,which,however,cannotbe
separatedfromtheinstitutionsthatthesefreedomsfinance.Theatrecanbethoughtofasthecritical
practiceoftheorderingofthingsitself,whichacceptsthattheidealself-imageofthisorderisbeing
appealedtoandwhich,inreturn,leadstoatransformationofthatorder.However,thisprocessof
criticaltransformationimpliesthattheorderisbeingkeptalive,albeitdifferently.What,therefore,
istherelationshipbetweencritiqueandaffirmation?Whichrelationshipdoesthesubversive
potentialthatisoftenassociatedwiththetheatreentertainnotonlyinthedissolutionofexisting
normsandordersbutalsointheirstabilisation?
3.Critiqueofthedispositiveofthetheatreinthepastandthepresent
WhentheatreisconceivedofasanapparatusintheFoucauldiansense,wecanthenaskwith
Agambenhowtheatrepractitionershaveworkedonwhathecalls“profanation”andonthe
evocationoftheungovernabilitythatisco-originaltothetheatre(Agamben2009,24).Whatdidthe
scenic,practicalandtheoreticalungovernabilityofthetheatre’sowndispositiveoritsprofanationin
decisivetimesofchangelooklike,forexampleduringthetheatrereformationofthemid-18th
century,attheWeimarCourtTheatre,atthebeginningofthe20thcentury,inBrecht’sEpicTheatre,
inEinarSchleef’schoricstagingsorintheso-calledconceptdanceattheturnofthe21stcentury?
4.Theatreasacriticalpracticeofthoughtandaction
Sinceitsbeginnings,theatreintheoccidentaltraditionhasnotjustbeenunderstoodasacritical
practiceinthenarrowsenseof“theatre”.Itappears–inthepolemicsofitsadversariesaswellasthe
defencesofitsadvocates–tobeaformofcriticalpracticeofboththoughtandaction.Howcanthis
critiquebegraspedmorepreciselyinviewoftextsaswellasscenicpractices–acritiquethat,above
allinthelastfewyearshasledtotalkofathinkingofthestage,ofartisticresearchandoppositional
bodies
5.Critiqueofcritique
Whencritiqueitselfissubjecttomultifacetedcritique,itaffectsboththetheatreasacriticalpractice
inthebroadsenseaswellasthepostulateofcritiqueinthenarrowsense.Theatrecritique,which
noticeablydispersesinfavouroffleetingrecommendationsornolessfleetingslatingreviews,is
affectedbyamoregeneralcritiqueofcritique.Whichaporiasofcritiquecanbeaccountedforina
criticaldiscourseaboutcritique?Whichperspectivesdoesthecritiqueofcritiqueopenupforother
relatedpractices,astheyhavebeendevelopedinthepastfewyears–ofresistance,of
deconstruction,ofcitation/repetition,ofparody?
6.Theatrestudiesasacriticalpractice
Inwhichrespectcantheatrestudiesbegroundedasacriticalpractice?Towhichextentcantheybe
basedonthetraditionsofCriticalTheory,theFrankfurtSchoolorotherFrenchandUS-American
schoolsofthoughtthatinpartcompetewithbutinpartcontinuethesetraditions–forexample
Butler,JacquesDerrida,Foucault,JacquesLacan,PhilippeLacoue-LabartheandJean-LucNancy?How
dopracticalproblems,theexperienceofsufferingandknowledgeofthesocialmediacyofone’sown
positionaswellastheobservedobjectsandpracticesandsocietalcontextsasawholeenterintoa
kindoftheatrestudiesthatconsidersitselfcritical?Howaretheatrestudiesasacriticalpractice
relatedtoothercriticalpractices?Whichquestionsdotheyposetootherformsofknowledgeand
thearchivingofandinquiryintothetheatre?
7.Critiqueandthepublicsphereinthetheatre
ThepracticeofcritiqueasaconsequenceoftheEnlightenment–especiallyinthetheatre–is
connectedwiththedevelopmentofthepublicsphereanditscounter-publicspheres.InLessing’s
HamburgDramaturgy,hedemonstratesthatcritiqueastheconstitutionofanewpublicsphere
alwaysservesthedevelopmentoftheself-image,valuesandnormsofasocialclass.Howcanthe
relationshipbetweentheatre,thepublicsphereandpowerbedescribedhistoricallyandcurrently(in
thepre-Marchperiod,intheThirdReich,individedGermanypost-1945)?Atwhichpublicspheresis
criticalpracticedirectedandwhichdoesitshape?Whichnormsandvaluescomeintoplay?Which
roledoesjournalistictheatrecritiqueplayasarepresentativeofthepublicsphereinthefightforthe
recognitionoftheatricalaesthetics?Howaretheriseandfalloftheatrecritiqueconnectedwith
generalstructuralchangeinthepublicsphere?
8.Hostilitytowardsthetheatre
Whatkindsofcritiquehasthetheatrefacedthroughouthistory,fromPlatontoTertullian,fromthe
JansenitesandRousseautoGuyDebordandcontemporaryperformanceart?Whichargumentshave
beenvoicedagainstcertaintheatricalpracticesinwhichcontexts,forexampleagainsthistoricalas
wellascontemporarytheatreformsandaesthetics?Howdoesphilosophicalcritiqueofthetheatre
behaveinrelationtothetheatreinherenttotheory,tothelinguisticalityandstagingthatare
inseparablefromtheory?Whatistherelationshipbetweenthetheatre-criticaldiscoursesofclerical
criticsandthefathersofthechurchtheybasedthemselvesuponfromthe18thtothe20thcentury?
Howisthecritiqueofthespectacleandthemediarelatedtotraditionalformsoftheatrecritique?
Significantacademicsandartistsareintendedaskeynotespeakers.Therewillalsobeagroupof
youngacademicsthatwillpresenttheresultsoftheirdiscussionsinakeynotespeech.Alongsidethe
classicalkeynoteandpanelformats,thelatterwiththreelecturesof20minutes,thecongresswould
liketoencouragecontributorstotryoutothercontributionformats.Wearealsoseekingsuggestions
forlectureperformancesorgrouppresentationsatalengthof60minutes,givenbyuptosix
academicswithadiscussionafterwards.Alongsidesingletalks,entirepanelswiththree
correspondinglecturesmayalsobesuggested,althoughtheorganisersreservetherighttoenlarge
orreconfigurethepanelswithrespecttothesuggestionstheyreceive.Aspecialyoungacademics
forumisnotplanned,althoughyoungacademicsareparticularlyencouragedtotakepartinthis
congresswiththeirowncontributions.Furthermore,oneelementarycomponentofthecongressis
mutualvisitstotheatreperformancesinlocaltheatresaswellassceniccontributionsfromstudents
oftheHessianTheatreAcademy.
ThecongresswilladvancetheinternationalisationofGerman-speakingtheatrestudiesbyputtingon
aseriesofpanelsinEnglishthatwillrunparalleltotheGerman-speakingpanels.Wewouldthuslike
toencouragecontributorsfromabroadtosubmitabstracts.Wewillendeavourtoprovidefunding
forthetravelandaccommodationcostsofcontributorsfromabroadfromtheGermanResearch
Community(DFG).Inordertobeeligibleforthisfunding,pleasesubmityourabstractbythe1stof
April.
Forthoseofyouwhodonotneedfunding,pleasesendyourabstractorsuggestionforapanel(max.
500characters)bythe30thofApril2016tothefollowingemailaddress:
[email protected]
Theorganiserswillarrangethefinancialmeanstofreethosewhosesuggestionsforalectureora
presentationareacceptedfromtheconferencefee,inasmuchastheydonothavetheopportunityto
receivethisfundingelsewhere.Pleasetelluswhenyousendusyoursuggestionifthisappliestoyou.
Forhotelreservations,pleasecheckthelistofhotelsonthecongresshomepagefromthe1stofMay
on:
www.theater-wissenschaft.de/kongresse
Ifyouwanttotakepartinthecongress,pleaseregisteronourwebsitefromthe1stofJune2016on.
Literature
Adorno,TheodorW./Horkheimer(2002),Max,DialecticofEnlightenment,trans.EdmundJephcott,
Stanford:StanfordUP.
Adorno,TheodorW.(1981),“CulturalCriticismandSociety”,in,TheodorW.Adorno,Prisms,trans.
SamuelundShierryWeber,Cambridge,MA:MITPress,p.17-34.
Agamben,Giorgio(2009),“WhatisanApparatus?”,in,GiorgioAgamben,WhatisanApparatus?And
OtherEssays,ed.WernerHamacher,trans.DavidKishikandStefanPedatella,Stanford:StanfordUP,
p.1-24.
Butler,Judith,“WhatisCritique?AnEssayonFoucault’sVirtue,in,DavidIngram(ed.),ThePolitical:
ReadingsinContinentalPhilosophy,London:BasilBlackwell2001,accessed16.12.15at
<http://eipcp.net/transversal/0806/butler/en>.
Foucault,Michel,“WhatisCritique?”,in,JamesSchmidt(ed.),WhatisEnlightenment?EighteenthCenturyQuestionsandEighteenthCenturyAnswers,Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress1997,p.
23-61.
Heidegger,Martin(1977),“TheQuestionConcerningTechnology”,in,MartinHeidegger,The
QuestionConcerningTechnologyandOtherEssays,trans.WilliamLovitt,NewYork;London:Garland,
p.3-35.