Tag: Politics

Essay on political theatre – Part 5

theatermarginalienLeave a comment

In “Essay on Political Theatre – Part 4,” Hans-Thies Lehmann’s essay “How Political Is Postdramatic Theatre?” was analyzed.

Aftermath of Lehmann’s theory

The influence of Lehmann’s approach on theatre theory should not be underestimated. His formula that theatre is political precisely when it cannot be translated back into political discourse led to all kinds of theatre productions being classified as “political theatre.” In fact, all productions that exhibited the characteristics of post-dramatic theatre as analyzed by Lehmann were called political, from Rimini Protokoll 1 via Pollesch to Holzinger.2

An example:

“If Pollesch’s theatre can be called political, … then it is because of its playful questioning of what is considered normal reality.” 3.

With the same justification, one could call Pollesch’s work “philosophical.”

Or

“Making political theatre can also mean leaving it up to the audience to decide what they want to understand.” 4

In every form of theatre, it is up to the audience to decide what they want to understand. Exerting pressure on the audience to think in a certain way remains a pipe dream of overzealous theatre makers. Thoughts are free, even in theatre, and not just in political theatre.

Here, as there, there is no definable concept of “political.”

Politics and the political as asymmetrical opposites

However, reference is often made to the difference between politics and the political. The manifold attempts to establish this difference conceptually and to clarify the relationship between the two parts by Lacoue-Labarthe, Lefort, Badiou, Rancière and Nancy often shrink in theatre theory to a demarcation from ‘politics’. ‘The political’ is then everything in human coexistence that is not politics. Thomas Bedorf places this use of the dichotomy politics/political in the series of asymmetrical opposites such as Christian/pagan.5 The term ‘political’ is thus used to qualify theatre works that have no recognisable connection to “politics” as political. But why is this qualification necessary? Is ‘political’ simply a value-laden adjective like ‘interesting’?

Three microanalyses of theoretical statements

Hidden value judgements are typical of contemporary theatre studies. Here are three linguistic microanalyses:

‘The forms of explicitly political theatre that developed during the 20th century seem to have reached an end point.’6

A cautious (‘seem’), descriptive statement. But in the context of contemporary theatre studies, the assertion that a form of theatre has reached an ‘end point’ is a devaluation of that form. For this discipline seeks to theorise the new and thus point the way forward for practice. Such forms of explicitly political theatre are “often reduced to a legitimisation of the theatre business through obvious conflict themes,” writes Primavesi. Here, too, the description is cautious (‘often’). But the following participle “reduced” cannot refer to the frequency of the performances, but rather to their content, and conveys a devaluation of this content. In this context, the adjective “obvious” also takes on an aesthetically pejorative connotation. The “legitimisation of theatre operations” is also a pejorative motif in this context. Why should a theatre be criticised for wanting to legitimise its operations? It must legitimise its operations in the public eye, and it can do so with productions that take up “obvious conflict issues” or with productions that “disappoint or subvert the audience’s habitual perceptions”, as Primavesi describes and prefers in his essay. The “legitimation of theatre operations” is possible in many different ways. But it is necessary in any case.

Another example:

‘However, as this review of various positions on the question of political theatre has already shown, there can be no normative definition that determines once and for all what political theatre is or even should be. Nor is there “the political” that could serve as an absolute criterion of quality and prove the relevance of artistic practice. Who would decide what is political and what is not?’7

There is some confusion in these sentences by Primavesi.

1. A definition of what political theatre is is not normative, unless “political” is a normative term, a criterion of quality. Normative would only be a codification of what political theatre must be, i.e. a codification of instructions on what political theatre should look like.

2. A definition of what falls under the term ‘political theatre’ is necessary if one wants to clarify terms. And that is a task for philosophy. However, clarifying a term is not a prescription for practical behaviour.

3. Of course, there is no such thing as ‘the political’ that can function as an absolute (or even relative) criterion of quality. But every theory of political science or political philosophy attempts to determine what ‘the political’ is, what is meant by this term.

4. Even in the rejection of ‘the political’ as a criterion of quality for theatre, it becomes clear that Primavesi also considers it to be such. According to Primavesi, the reason why the political cannot be a criterion of quality is simply that it is impossible to determine what meets this criterion. If there were a generally accepted definition of what ‘the political’ is, we would have a criterion of quality for good theatre, and the relevance of artistic practice would be proven. Relevant theatre would then be political theatre.

Or

‘Making theatre politically does not mean that one does not want to take a political stance, but rather that one consciously refuses to take this moral position in order to address the functioning of politics. Moral political criticism, on the other hand, always falls short; it operates on the surface and remains trapped in the system of a conventional concept of politics.’ 8

Here, “taking a political stance” is equated (“this”) with “moral position”. The autonomy of politics and morality is thus ignored, yet a distinction is made between not taking “a political stance” and “consciously refusing to take this moral position” (=political stance).  The difference can therefore only lie in awareness. Political criticism, and thus political theatre that refers to ‘politics’ and does not merely ‘make  theatre politically’, is equated with moral criticism and devalued (‘too short … superficial … trapped’).

An open definition of political theatre

An older definition of political theatre from English-language theatre studies, on the other hand, is much more open and less normative than descriptive:

“Thinking of political theatre as a cultural practice that self-consciously operates at the level of interrogation, critique and intervention, unable to stand outside the very institutions and attitudes it seeks to change. Such a difference allows us to place under the rubric of political theatre a range of theatrical activity, from theatre as an act of political intervention taken on behalf of a designated population and having a specific political agenda; to theatre that offers itself as a public forum through plays with overtly political content; to theatre whose politics are covertly, or unwittingly, on display, inviting an actively critical stance from its audience.”9

At the same time, in their overview of the contributions to their anthology, the editors make it clear why it is so difficult to develop an open, descriptive concept of political theatre:

‘Critical activity is itself a situated act of political investment.’10

The  analysis of political theatre in theatre studies is rarely purely descriptive because the condition of partiality, which is inherent in any activity in the field of politics, spills over from the object to the analysis. The definition of what political theatre is is itself understood as a political act.

So what is the political?

A common distinction between politics and the political in theatre theory can be found in Jan Deck:

“Politics here means thinking in terms of government logic and problem-solving strategies, but also the practice of criticising state measures … And that means excluding certain views of social developments from political discourse per se. The political is that which eludes this definition and reduction to pragmatic self-restraint. It is the resistant, that which is not recognised as relevant by politics…. Contemporary approaches to the performing arts seem to be a place of the political in a way completely different to this understanding of politics.” 11

This understanding of the political as opposed to politics, as a political opposition that is not part of politics and therefore does not have to concern itself with ‘logics of government,’ ‘problem-solving strategies,’ and ‘state measures,’ and of theatre as a place of the political, not of politics, has shaped the idea of political theatre in Germany from around 2000 to the present day.

Oliver Marchart12 on the other hand, develops a different concept in his examination of the left-Heideggerian theorists of the political13. For Marchart, the political is the dimension of the founding of politics, the ‘institutionalisation of the community,’ which, according to his post-fundamentalist approach, is at the same time the recognition of the impossibility of a final justification of politics. For Marchart, the founding of politics is necessary, but always  necessarily contingent. Every political system must attempt to justify itself through reasons. At the same time, however, it is clear that these justifications are arbitrary, contingent, and that other justifications are always possible. Democracy is the form of politics that institutionalises this knowledge of the impossibility of a final foundation of politics. The connection between politics and the political is therefore one of foundation (in the form of necessary groundlessness on the one hand and the necessity of foundation on the other), not one of opposition.

‘No one has ever encountered “the political” in its pure form anywhere other than in the fractures and divisions of society, which are filled, expanded or closed by: politics.’14

A theatre of the political would therefore have to represent or examine how politics fills the ‘fractures and cracks of the social’ and in doing so discovers the possibilities for founding society.

An example:

The founding documents of a theatre of the political are, of course, Aeschylus’ ‘Oresteia’ and Sophocles’ ‘Antigone’15. What we can learn from this today in order to recognise the current political dilemmas by viewing them through the lens of the old model is demonstrated by Karin Beyer’s staging of Roland Schimmelpfennig’s five-part Thebes cycle ‘Anthropolis’ (Deutsches Schauspielhaus Hamburg 2023 16).

In ‘Iokaste’ (= Anthropolis IV), the chorus formulates the post-fundamentalist insight into the abysmal nature of all foundations of the community:

Chorus: “Justice and law are nothing but a construct, a house whose walls stand until someone tears them down, and then all that remains of justice and law is rubble.” 17

Jocasta then provides a foundation for politics in the tradition of Hannah Arendt:

Jocasta: “Equality is a law among humans, and this law applies to everyone, to all of humanity. You both have the same right. Equality and peace govern the world.” 18

And in ‘Antigone’ (= Anthropolis V), Creon formulates his concept of foundation closely based on the wording of Carl Schmitt’s definition of the political:

Creon: “Those who value their friends more than their own country are nothing but nothing… and an enemy can never become my friend or ally, for I know: We are all nothing without the city; without it, we are lost; there can be no future, no plans, no alliances, no friends without it; everything else is treason.” 19

In “Anthropolis”, the various possibilities for establishing the political are played out, demonstrating the necessity of this foundation and, at the same time, revealing the contingency of these various attempts. The diverse anachronisms that Schimmelpfennig has incorporated into the ancient mythological material ensure a connection to contemporary politics20.

What, then, is politics?

Marchart gives a minimal definition of politics. He lists six criteria that an action must fulfil if it is to be understood as politics:

  • Becoming a majority
  • Strategy
  • Organisation
  • Collectivity
  • Conflictuality
  • Partisanship

A political action must pursue the goal of becoming capable of gaining majority support, it must pursue a certain strategy, i.e. be compatible with a long-term concept that can become politically dominant (hegemony), have a minimum degree of organisation, be or become collective in some form, want to intervene in a conflict and therefore represent a certain point of view and thus be partisan, not neutral.

‘Politics is always shaped by restrictive conditions, including those of becoming a majority, strategy, organisation, collectivity, conflictuality and partiality.’ 21

No theatre production can fully meet these criteria, at least not one that is publicly funded, except perhaps the agitprop group of a political party, such as the “Rote Sprachrohr” (Red Megaphone) of the KPD in the Weimar Republic. 22. A municipal theatre (Stadttheater) is a publicly funded institution with a highly differentiated division of labour for the purpose of producing theatre art, but it is not a political organisation.

Nevertheless, there are varying degrees of approximation to these criteria of politics in contemporary theatre. Attempts to bring political groups such as the ‘Centre for Political Beauty’ (Zentrum für politische Schönheit, “2099” Theater Dortmund 2015) or ’”The Last Generation (“Die letzte Generation‘”, ’Recht auf Jugend” Schauspiel Bonn 2022, text: Lothar Kittstein, director: Volker Lösch) go the furthest in this direction. Here, the theatre places itself at the service of a political organisation, albeit only temporarily. Projects such as ‘Die Welt neu denken’ (Theatre Bonn 2021, based on the book of the same title by Maja Göpel, directed by Simon Solberg) and ‘Geld ist Klasse’ (FFT Düsseldorf 2024 with Volker Lösch and Marlene Engelhorn) meet these criteria even less, although they proclaim concrete instructions for action to the audience, because they are not directly (but possibly indirectly23) with a political organisation. Even further removed from these criteria are productions such as ‘Mölln 92/22’ (Schauspiel Köln 2022, concept and direction: David Nuran Calis) or ‘Aufstieg und Fall des René Benko’ (Volkstheater Wien 2024, concept and direction: Calle Fuhr), which do not proclaim any instructions for action but are nevertheless partisan.

Mass-politics – post-politics – anti-politics

The fact that so many examples of theatre productions that approach politics and explicitly address political issues can be found since 2020 is also due to a change in the relationship between society and politics. Theatres respond not only to theatre theory, but also to audience preferences. The “old” political theatre was not always wrong, it simply had a different audience. The “old” political theatre of the 1950s to 1970s (Sartre, Peter Weiss, Kipphardt, etc.) still fell within the phase of mass-politics, when politics still took place in institutionalised contexts (parties, organisations). Hans-Thies Lehmann’s definition of post-dramatic theatre as political in its departure from politics fell within the phase of post-politics between 1990 and 2010 24. The importance of organised political institutions declined, and political decisions were presented as having no alternative. Political engagement was less in demand.

‘Post-politics {…} was characterised by widespread depoliticisation: citizens withdrew into their private lives, wanted little to do with politics – and certainly not with regular political participation.’ 25

This turning away from the actual politics of the time is reflected in the theatre as a shift in the demands placed on politics:

‘When (government) politics becomes the mere administration of the existing order, it loses its function as a place of utopia.’ 26

This utopian function was now to be taken over by the theatre of the political.

Between 2010 and 2020, this relationship changed and new social movements with political aspirations emerged (Black Lives Matter, Yellow Vests, Last Generation, etc.). This marked the beginning of the phase of anti-politics, in contrast to the apolitical phase of post-politics.

‘Anti-politics was a politics against a politics that was not.’ 27

The examples of theatre projects mentioned above, which come as close as possible to politics, date from this phase. This shift is also reflected in theoretical reflections on the relationship between politics and theatre. Alexander Kerlin, then dramaturge at Schauspiel Dortmund under the artistic direction of Kay Voges, stated in 2019:

‘In view of the threat posed by anti-liberal, anti-democratic politics, many voices today are calling for a return to a completely different tradition in the performing arts: direct and unmediated political and activist action.’ 28

And Michael Wolf (editor of Nachtkritik) finds a solution for how political theatre can be effective: by taking a stand in local conflicts and anchoring itself in political debates at the local level 29.

“The ultimate goal of political theatre is not to make a few audience members think differently about an issue. Political theatre that wants to be taken seriously must leave the sidelines and take a position at the centre of the debate. […] How can a politically active theatre still have an impact? The answer is obvious: by relating its content to its region. It is important to limit the radius of one’s own themes. Stadtheater should remember that it is a local cultural institution.‘ 30

Here, then, is a proposed way in which theatre can meet the criteria of conflictuality and partisanship in politics.

Hypothetical summary

In the post-political phase after 1989, the distinction between politics and the political, which originated in French criticism of totalitarianism 31, was used in theatre theory to confer the quality of ‘political’ on theatre productions that deliberately avoided explicitly political content. In Germany, there is a long tradition of equating politics with the state 32. This tradition was still effective in this post-political phase. Distancing oneself from politics meant turning away from state action. However, the concept of ‘the political’ as the antonym of ‘politics’ offered the possibility of continuing to use the epithet “political” and thus continuing the justification of theatre from the years of the Weimar Republic and the ‘trent glorieuses’ 1945-75. The concept of ‘the political’ thus fulfilled a function similar to that in the German tradition of “culture” as the antithesis of politics understood as state action 33. However, when various political movements emerged (again) after 2010, both internationally and in Germany, which were political but not state-run, it became possible once more to apply the term ‘politics’ to a sphere that was not state-run. Theatres opened up to these political movements, and political content, albeit in a different form, was no longer taboo.

To be continued

  1. “The production that Rimini Protokoll created in 2006 from Karl Marx’s classic theory ‘Das Kapital, Band 1’ proved to be paradigm-forming {for new forms of political theatre}.” Christian Rakow, “Auf zweiter Stufe: Theater und politische Bildung – geht das überhaupt zusammen?” in: Heinrich-Böll-Stiftung (ed.), Moralische Anstalt 2.0. Über Theater und politische Bildung ↵
  2. “So what makes Holzinger Theater so special? {…} it is a density of theatrical means that function almost flawlessly and, in the flow of what can be seen, allow for moments of reflection, casual, clear, political in their own way.“ Georg Diez, ”Klarheit, Tiefe, Krassheit“ {review of Florentina Holzinger’s ”Sancta.” Die Zeit, June 1, 2024 ↵
  3. Patrick Primavesi, “Theater/Politik. Kontexte und Beziehungen” (Theatre/Politics. Contexts and Relationships). In: Jan Deck & Angelika Seeburg (eds.), Politisch Theater machen. Neue Artikulationsformen des Politischen in den darstellenden Künsten (Making Political Theatre. New Forms of Articulation of the Political in the Performing Arts). Bielefeld: Transkript, 2011, p. 65 ↵
  4. Jan Deck, „Politisch Theater machen – Eine Einleitung“ (“Making Political Theater—An Introduction”), in Jan Deck & Angelika Seeburg (eds.), Politisch Theater machen. Neue Artikulationsformen des Politischen in den darstellenden Künsten (Making Political Theatre: New Forms of Articulation of the Political in the Performing Arts). Bielefeld: Transkript, 2011, p. 17 ↵
  5. “It is only clear in each case what the political is not: namely, ‘mere’ politics. If this difference resembles the logic of asymmetrical opposites, as Reinhart Koselleck has examined in the history of concepts in the opposition between Greeks and barbarians, Christians and pagans, humans and subhumans, then the distinction between the political and politics threatens to become a hypostatisation of the political.” Thomas Bedorf, ‘Das Politische und die Politik. Konturen einer Differenz“ (The Political and Politics. Contours of a Difference). In: Thomas Bedorf and Kurt Röttgers (eds.): Das Politische und die Politik (The Political and Politics). Berlin: Suhrkamp. 2010, p. 33, cf. Reinhart Koselleck, »Zur historisch-politischen Semantik asymmetrischer Gegenbegriffe« (‘On the Historical-Political Semantics of Asymmetrical Opposites’). In: idem, Vergangene Zukunft. Zur Semantik geschichtlicher Zeiten, Frankfurt/M. 2nd ed. 1992, pp. 211-259. ↵
  6. Primavesi, op. cit., p. 44 ↵
  7. Primavesi, op. cit., p. 57 ↵
  8. Jan Deck, op. cit., p. 28 ↵
  9. Jeanne Colleran & Jenny S. Spencer (eds.), ’Introduction” to Staging Resistance Essays on Political Theatre. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press, 1998 p.1 ↵
  10. ibid. p.3. The translation into German is problematic due to the different concepts of criticism and science. In this context, ‘critical activity’ refers to the detailed, theoretically underpinned analysis of a theatre performance, as this is the nature of most of the contributions to this anthology. ‘Theatre criticism’ (Theaterkritik) in the German sense, i.e. writing about theatre productions in the current media on a daily basis, is not meant here. In German terms, the contributions in this volume would fall under ‘theatre studies’ (Theaterwissenschaft) or ‘performance analysis’ (Aufführungsanalyse). In German terms, retranslated into English, the sentence means something like:  ‘Writing theatre studies or performance analyses is itself an activity embedded in a specific political situation with the aim of influencing politics.’ ↵
  11. Deck p. 25f ↵
  12. Marchart, Oliver, Die politische Differenz. Zum Denken des Politischen bei Nancy, Lefort, Badiou, Laclau und Agamben. Berlin: Suhrkamp, 2010 ↵
  13. Nancy, Lefort, Rancière, Badiou, Laclau, Mouffe ↵
  14. Marchart, p.328 ↵
  15. Sophocles’ Antigone repeatedly serves Hegel as an example of the opposing principles of state and morality. For various interpretations of this opposition, see Georg Steiner, Die Antigonen. Geschichte und Gegenwart eines Mythos. Munich: Hanser, 1988, first chapter, pp. 1-3, pp. 13-59), one can add: Hegel’s interpretation of Antigone can be seen as an example of a fundamentalist foundation of politics: the ‘tyrannical sacrilege’ (“tyrannischer Frevel”, Creon) and the ‘sacrilege of knowledge’ (“Frevel des Wissens”, Antigone) are suspended in the ‘absolute pure will of all which has the form of immediate being ’( im „absoluten reinen Willen aller, der die Form des unmittelbaren Seins hat“). For Hegel, the foundation of society arises from the confrontation and suspension (“Aufhebung”) of these two principles. Hegel, Phänomenologie des Geistes. Theorie Werkausgabe Vol. 3, Frankfurt/M.: Suhrkamp, 1970, p. 320f ↵
  16. Simon Strauß in: Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung 17 July 2024 or Till Briegleb in: Süddeutsche Zeitung 12 November 2023 ↵
  17. Roland Schimmelpfennig, Anthropolis. Monster. City. Thebes. With an afterword by Sibylle Meier. Frankfurt (M: Fischer, 2023, p. 359 ↵
  18. ibid. p. 390 ↵
  19. ibid. p. 418 ↵
  20. e.g. in ‘Iokaste’ (=Anthropolis IV): the chorus describes the arrival of Eteocles in Thebes: “A single man on his way into the city, he is armed. Combat boots, an automatic rifle, combat suit, helmet.” Ibid. p. 385f ↵
  21. Marchart p. 342 ↵
  22. The “Rote Sprachrohr” was founded in 1926 under the direction of Maxim Vallentin as the ‘First agitprop group of the KJVD’, the youth organisation of the KPD. See Ludwig Hoffmann and Daniel Hoffmann-Ostwald (eds.), Deutsches Arbeitertheater 1918-1933. 2 vols. Munich: Rogner & Bernhard, 1973, introduction p. 37f ↵
  23. ‘Geld ist Klasse’ was co-financed by the Rosa-Luxemburg-Foundation, the party foundation of the ‘Left Party’ (“Die Linke”) ↵
  24. See also Colin Crouch’s concept of ‘post-democracy’ in: Colin Crouch, Postdemokratie. Berlin: Suhrkamp 2008 ↵
  25. Anton Jäger, Hyperpolitik. Extreme Politisierung ohne politische Folgen. Berlin: Suhrkamp, 2023, p.15 ↵
  26. Deck, op. cit. p. 13 ↵
  27. Anton Jäger, op. cit., p. 82 ↵
  28. Alexander Kerlin, ‘Beim Blick in den Abgrund’ (Looking into the Abyss), in: Heinrich-Böll-Stiftung (ed.), op. cit. p. 28 ↵
  29. The above-mentioned projects by Volker Lösch and Nuran David Calis can be seen as evidence of this thesis. ↵
  30. Michael Wolf, “Theater für den Heimbedarf: Wie Theater politisch wirksam werden kann” (Theatre for home use: How theatre can become politically effective), in: Heinrich-Böll-Stiftung (ed.), op. cit., pp. 44-45 ↵
  31. Following early work by Carl Schmitt and Hannah Arendt ↵
  32. Ernst Vollrath, ‘Zur Topologie der politischen Wahrnehmung in Deutschland I und II’ in: ibid. Was ist das Politische? Eine Theorie des Politischen und seiner Wahrnehmung. Würzburg: Königshausen & Neumann, 2003, pp. 115-176 ↵
  33. ‘Leading representatives of German cultural self-awareness {have} separated culture and politics from each other, even setting them in opposition to each other.’ Vollrath, op. cit. p. 157 ↵

Essay on political theatre – Part 3

theatermarginalienLeave a comment

Politics or the Political

In the discussion about what political theatre is, the distinction between ‘politics’ and the ‘political’ plays an important role. What Fischer-Lichte calls ‘New Politics of the Aesthetic’1 is based on this distinction. The separation of ‘politics’ from ‘the political’ makes it possible for an influential current in contemporary theatre to distance itself from a ‘political theatre’ that takes up political topics or content, and yet still see itself as political. Therefore, the development of this distinction will be briefly presented here. 2

a) Herodotus and Aristotle

The nominalisation of the adjective ‘political’ goes back to antiquity, to the peculiarity of the Greek language of enabling such nominalisations through articles, and to the tendency of Greek philosophy to formulate abstract concepts in such a way 3 The noun τὸ πολιτικόν first appears in Herodotus.

“καίτοι εἰ τὸ πολιτικὸν ὑμῖν πᾶν ἐστι τοιοῦτ”  (“and if  your political is as you describe it”)4

The Persian ruler Xerxes is discussing the fighting strength of the Greeks with Demaratus, a former Spartan king who has defected to the Persians, and is planning a campaign against them. Here, the political is equated with the polity, the city-state of Sparta.

Aristotle also uses the adverbial version of ‘politikos’ (πολιτικῶς). Ernst Vollrath relies on a passage in Athenaion Politeia (The Athenian State),

‘Πεισίστρατος … διῴkει τὰ κοινὰ πολιτικῶς μᾶλλον ἤ τυραννικῶς ‘ (14.3) ‘Peisistratos ruled the common – that is, the polis – in a political rather than a tyrannical way.’5

to show that the political is a practice.6 It means an ‘adverbial modality’, not a specific content or area.7 This adverbial use of the concept of the political will become even more significant for theatre in the 21st century.

b) Carl Schmitt and Hannah Arendt

Later, the concepts of politics and the political were largely equated8, until Carl Schmitt’s 1932 essay ‘Der Begriff des Politischen`(The Concept of the Political) provided the impetus to define the category of the political more precisely. For him, however, the conceptual opposition was between the state and the ‘political’. His fanfare-like opening was the sentence:

„Der Begriff des Staates setzt den Begriff des Politischen voraus.“ (The concept of the state presupposes the concept of the political.)9.

‘Politics’ is identified with the state. 10. While the ‘political’ is understood as a general term for a certain quality of human coexistence:

‘{The political} does not denote a separate subject area, but only the degree of intensity of an association or dissociation of people.”11.’ Christian Meier, Die Entstehung des Politischen bei den Griechen. Frankfurt/M: Suhrkamp, 2nd ed. 1989, p. 36]

Th the theoretical opponent of the later Nazi jurist Carl Schmitt was Hannah Arendt12. For her, politics is the free association of people:

“The meaning of politics is freedom”13,

Not, as with Carl Schmitt, ‘the distinction between friend and foe’14. But Hannah Arendt also does not give an independent definition of the political that could be contrasted with politics. She uses the concept of the political for ‘the political sphere’ or the ‘space of the political’15.

c) Paul Ricoeur

A definitional distinction between politics and the political can be found at around the same time in Paul Ricoeur 1957:

‘Le politique est organisation raisonnable, la politique est décision {…}. Le politique ne va pas sans la politique.’ (“The political is reasonable organisation, politics, on the other hand, is decision. {…} Of course, the political does not exist without politics.”)16

Ricoeur is actually concerned with the demarcation between politics and economics. Soviet troops marching into Hungary in 1957 was the reason for his criticism of Marxism, because it ignored the autonomy of the political sphere and thus made Stalin’s despotism possible.17 But to do that, he needed a concept of politics that did not mean the respective actions, but the area in which political actions take place, namely the ‘political’.18 But to do that, he needed a concept of politics that does not refer to the respective actions, but to the area in which political actions take place, namely the ‘political’, ‘la politique’.

d) Jean-Luc Godard

In the aftermath of May 1968 in Paris, this distinction between politics and the political was further developed because the demand for political effectiveness remained, but the experience of the failure of the rebellion also had to be processed. ‘Politics’ became the realm of established state powers, ‘the political’ the realm of art. The statements of film director Jean-Luc Godard are one stage in this development. His in his 1970 manifesto ‘Que faire?’, he invented the momentous distinction between ‘political’ as an adjective and ‘political’ as an adverb. It is no longer about the artistic product as political, but about the process of creating the work of art as understood politically.

1 We must make political films. 2 We must make films politically. 3 1 and 2 are antagonistic to each other and belong to two opposing conceptions of the world. {…}

10 To carry out 1 is to remain a being of the bourgeois class. 11 To carry out 2 is to take up a proletarian class position. {…}

21 To carry out 1 is to give a complete view of events in the name of truth in itself. 22 To carry out 2 is not to fabricate over-complete images of the world in the name of relative truth.19

Godard’s distinction between ‘making political films’ and ‘making films politically’ is repeatedly cited against a theatre that takes up current political issues. Godard’s text was written in 1970 and reflects the political discussions of the time.

In thesis and antithesis, the two concepts (making political films and making films politically) are juxtaposed. But when you read how Godard tried to explain what he meant by ‘making films politically’, it becomes clear how little use this is today. For him, making political films means ‘describing the wickedness of the world’. On the other hand, political filmmaking means ‘showing the people in struggle.’ So there is a difference in content, in the material depicted in the film. And when he concludes by calling for ‘reading the reports of Comrade Kiang Tsing,’ it becomes clear that this is not an authoritative text that could be referred to today. (He probably means Jiang Qing, Mao Zedong’s wife at the time, who has not published any reports. After Mao’s death, she was convicted as a member of the Gang of Four who had pushed the Cultural Revolution.)

There is only one pair of theses in this manifesto that points to the future: thesis 21, making political films ‘means giving a complete view of events in the name of truth itself.’ And thesis 22, making political films means ‘not creating over-complete images of the world in the name of relative truth.’ By calling for incomplete images and emphasising the relativity of truth, he is opposing the dogmatism of the left at the time and pointing the way for his further aesthetic development.

e) Jean-François Lyotard

A further step in the direction of a theatre that rejects ‘political theatre’ but still sees itself as political is Jean-Francois Lyotard’s essay ‘The Tooth, the Hand’ from 1972.20. In it, Lyotard attempts to refute the semiotic analysis of the theatre as a sign system by means of a complex argument. To do this, he goes back to Marx’s analysis of capitalism, in which the commodity relation is analysed as the interchangeability of everything with everything else. For Lyotard, this makes a meaningful sign relationship between representing signs and the represented signified impossible. Lyotard calls this a nihilism. He then turns against the agreement of the various elements of theatre, as demanded in the theory of Japanese Noh theatre. He wants ‘the independence, the simultaneity of sounds/noises, words, body figures, images.’21 He also criticises Brecht’s Marxist sign theory of theatre. He goes back to the surrealist painter Hans Bellmer, who, using the example of a hand cramped with toothache, questions the relationship between sign and signified. The hand does not signify pain. For the ‘movement of the libido’, both phenomena are equivalent, their relationship reversible. Lyotard pleads for an ‘energetic theatre’ in which there are no more sign relationships.

Lyotard’s essay is one of the first pieces of evidence that political representation in representative democracy is equated with the representation of the signified by and the signifying in theatre and is rejected in the same way. For him, categorically ‘no representation is justified.’ 22 In doing so, Lyotard equates political representation with ‘politics’, but his counter-concept is not yet that of the ‘political’ or ‘political theatre-making’, but rather that of ‘energetic theatre’, entirely in the sense of Antonin Artaud.

“9. Where the sign relationship and its gulf are abolished, the power relationship (the hierarchy) becomes the domination of the dramaturge + director + choreographer + set designer over the alleged signs and the alleged spectators impossible.
10. Alleged spectators, because the concept of such a person or function goes hand in hand with the predominance of representation in social life and especially with what the modern West calls politics.’”23

To be continued

  1. Erika Fischer-Lichte, {Lemma} „Politisches Theater“ in: Erika Fischer-Lichte e.a. (Hg.), *Metzler Lexikon Theatertheorie*. Stuttgart/Weimar: Metzler, 2nd ed. 2014, p.262. Translations of German quotations into English are my own G.P. ↵
  2. This presentation is inspired by the works of Marchart and Primavesi, but goes beyond these sources. ↵
  3. e.g. τὸ ἀγαθόν, the good in Aristotle. ↵
  4. Herodotus, Historien VII, 103 (1) ↵
  5. Ernst Vollrath, Grundlegung einer philosophischen Theorie des Politischen. Würzburg: Königshaus & Neumann, 1987, p. 54 ↵
  6. Vollrath takes Michael Oakeshotts concept of practice as his starting point. ↵
  7. Less relevant is a passage in Aristotle’s Politics, where the relationships within the household (economy) are explained: the man must rule over the woman and children, but in different ways, ‘γυναικός μὲν πολιτικῶς τέκνων δὲ βασιλικῶς’ (1259b1). Franz F. Schwarz translates ‘πολιτικῶς (politikoos)’ as ‘über die Frau nach Art eines Staatsmannes’ (Aristoteles, Politik. Schriften zur Staatstheorie. Stuttgart: Reclam, 1989, p. 101), Eugen Rolfes ‘über das Weib nach Art des Hauptes eines Freistaates’ (Aristoteles, Politik. Hamburg: Meiner, 4th ed. 1981, p.26) ↵
  8. Ernst Vollrath has traced the history of the concept in detail in his dictionary entry ‘Politisch, das Politische’. Ernst Vollrath, Lemma ‘Politisch, das Politische’, In: Historisches Wörterbuch der Philosophie, ed. by Joachim Ritter & Karlfried Gründer. Vol. 7 P-Q, Basel: Schwabe, 1989 pp. 1072-1075 ↵
  9. Carl Schmitt, Der Begriff des Politischen. Text von 1932 mit einem Vorwort und drei Corollarien . Berlin: Duncker und Humblot, 9th ed. 2015 ↵
  10. In a detailed study, Ernst Vollrath has shown the extent to which the concept of the political in Germany has always been identified with the state. ‘German political perception is almost exclusively related to the state, so that the political is seen and shown in absorptive identification with the state.’ Ernst Vollrath, Was ist das Politische. Eine Theorie des Politischen und seiner Wahrnehmung. Würzburg: Königshausen & Neumann, 2003, p.115 ↵
  11. „{Das Politische} bezeichnet kein eigenes Sachgebiet, sondern nur den Intensitätsgrad einer Assoziation oder Dissoziation von Menschen.“ Carl Schmitt l.c., p.36. Carl Schmitt’s definition of the political is the starting point for any discussion of the concept: critically, for example, in the work of Ernst Vollrath, who criticises  Schmitt’s definition of the political solely through dissociation, i.e. through the friend-foe relationship, and points  to Schmitt’s later justification of the Hitler’s ‘leader principle’  as the moment of association in the political as a consequence of his earlier definition of the political as category of dissociation.  Cf. Vollrath 1987 pp. 37f. Or approvingly in Christian Meier: ‘Carl Schmitt speaks very aptly of a field of relationships and tensions. What was previously concentrated in the substance of the state has, due to its decentralisation, increasingly been externalised among the diversity of forces and relations, and the concept of the political seeks to do justice to this situation [… ↵
  12. Ernst Vollrath was a participant in Hannah Arendt’s seminars at the New School for Social Research in New York. G.P. was only a student of Ernst Vollrath in a seminar in Cologne. ↵
  13. „Der Sinn von Politik ist Freiheit“ Hannah Arendt, Was ist Politik? Munich: Piper, 1993 p.28, in a fragment published only from the estate, written around 1958 ↵
  14. “die Unterscheidung von Freund und Feind” Carl Schmitt, op. cit., p.19 ↵
  15. Arendt, op. cit., p. 53. In her work, politics and the political can also be used synonymously, e.g. „… der Sinn von Politik, und zwar das Heil wie das Unheil des Politischen“ p. 42 ↵
  16. “Das Politische ist vernünftige Organisation, die Politik hingegen Entscheidung. {…} Das Politische freilich existiert nicht ohne Politik.“ Paul Ricœure, „Das politische Paradox“, in: P.R., Geschichte und Wahrheit. Trans. by Romain Leick. Munich: Li , 1974. First published in French as ‘Le paradoxe politique’, in: Esprit 25 (1957), pp. 721-745 ↵
  17. ‘Only a political philosophy that has recognised the specificity of the political – the specificity of its function and the specificity of its evil – is able to correctly pose the problem of political control.’ „Nur eine politische Philosophie, die die Spezifität des Politischen – die Spezifität seiner Funktion und die Spezifität seines Übels – erkannt hat, ist in der Lage, das Problem der politischen Kontrolle korrekt zu stellen.“ Ricoeur ibid. p.265 ↵
  18. Ricoeur, op. cit., p.265 ↵
  19. Jean-Luc Godard, “What is to be done?” afterimage No. 1 April 1970. German in: Jean-Luc Godard, „Was tun?“ in: Godard/Kritiker. Ausgewählte Kritiken und Aufsätze über Film (1950-1970*. Auswahl und Übersetzung von Frieda Grafe. München: Hanser, 1971 p.186-188 ↵
  20. Jean-Francois Lyotard, „Der Zahn, die Hand“, in: Essays zu einer affirmativen Ästhetik. Berlin: Merve, 1982, pp. 11-23 {first published in French as ‘Le Dent, la Paume’, 1972} ↵
  21. Lyotard, ibid. p. 21 ↵
  22. Lyotard, l.c. p.11 ↵
  23. „9. Wo man die Zeichenbeziehung und deren Kluft abschafft, wird die Machtbeziehung (die Hierarchie) die Herrschaft des Dramaturgen+Regisseurs+Choreographen +Bühnenbildners über die angeblichen Zeichen und die angeblichen Zuschauer unmöglich. 10. Angebliche Zuschauer, weil der Begriff einer solchen Person oder Funktion einhergeht mit der Vorherrschaft der Repräsentation im gesellschaftlichen Leben und besonders mit dem, was das moderne Abendland Politik nennt.“ Lyotard, op. cit. p.21 ↵

Essay on political theatre – part 1

theatermarginalienLeave a comment

There are two ways of thinking about political theatre, two sentence beginnings: I. ‘Theatre is political because …’ or II. ‘Theatre is political if …’.

I. ‘Theatre is political because …’

Then general conditions would have to be outlined which theatre as a whole fulfils in all possible variations and which justify the qualification as political.

II ‘Theatre is political if …’

a) descriptive

This sentence structure seems to introduce a description of a genre of theatre, a purely analytical statement that names the conditions under which a certain type of theatre can be described as political. There would then be a kind of theatre that is not political and one would have to name the difference between political and non-political theatre.

b) normative

Often, however, this ‘if …’ seems to be heading towards a value judgement. The condition is actually a wish or a demand. Theatre ought to be political. It is characteristic of the discussion in theatre criticism and theatre studies that this ought to is not explicitly formulated, but only insinuated.
How is this ought to justified?

aa) In Hegelian terms: it follows from the concept or basic structure of theatre that it is political, and only if it fulfils this concept it is theatre in the full sense. If not, is it somehow inferior? So, as with I., one would have to define the concept or basic structure of theatre more precisely. And explain how an ‘ought’ emerges from this ‘being’ of theatre.

bb) Or is the demand for a political theatre simply a moral demand like any other? Theatre should be political because it then promotes the interests of the greatest possible number of people? It would be more than just a demand that theatre meets the requirements of politics (‘politically correct’), but that it makes a morally valuable contribution to politics. The theatre would therefore not be autonomous, but subordinate to politics, which in turn would be subordinate to morality.

I.+II. Politics or the political

For both analyses, the question arises as to whether the quality ‘political’ refers to politics or to the political (in  English often polity). For in the philosophy of politics and also in the discussion of theatre theory, the distinction between ‘politics’ (la politique) and ‘the political’ (le politique) has become established. So does political theatre refer to the realm of politics or to the political or both? So what is the relationship between the noun ‘politics’, the attributive adjective ‘political’ and the substantivised adjective ‘the political’ in the case of theatre?

In her encyclopaedia article ‘Politisches Theater’1 Erika Fischer-Lichte distinguishes between four conceptual understandings:

1. structural politicality of theatre, 2. anthropological impact of theatre as political, 3. thematic politicality of theatre, 4. new politics of the aesthetic.

Conceptual understandings 1 and 2 are of the type ‘theatre is political because …’ (I.) and are aimed at theatre as a whole, at its structure (1) or its effect (2). 3. is a definition of a certain type of theatre, i.e. II a), but often also II b) bb). However, Fischer-Lichte’s term no. 4 is the most interesting because it has occupied the theatre studies debate in recent years.

In the following, the questions arising from I, II a) and b) as well as Fischer-Lichte’s No. 4 will be examined, in each case with reference to the philosophical or theatre studies literature and occasional references to current theatre practice.

I. ‘Theatre is political because …’

1 Alain Badiou

From Alain Badiou, the French philosopher who has always been politically active to this day and who was also present in the theatre as an author, one could expect an answer.2

For Badiou, there is a ‘formal analogy’ between theatre and politics (‘la politique’)3 He also calls this relationship of similarity ‘isomorphism theatre/politics’. It is not based on thematic congruence, but on structure. However, he also sees a distance between politics and theatre, which he calls ‘figurative’4. To show the analogous relationship between theatre and politics, he lists the elements of both areas:

‘So: place, text, director, actors, set, costumes, audience are the elements of theatre that can be deduced a priori. And organisations, textual speakers, thinkers, proper names, the state, different points of view and eventful masses are the mandatory ingredients of a political situation.’ 5

For Badiou, politics is nothing permanent, ‘politics takes place’ and so does the theatre: ‘The performance takes place.’6. For Badiou, theatre and politics (‘la politique’) have the complete precariousness of time in common. For Badiou, ‘substantial’ theatre, unlike cinema and commercial ‘theatre’, is a matter for the state and therefore requires subsidies.7.

‘Of all the arts, theatre is the one that most persistently leans towards politics (or presupposes it).’ 8

For Badiou, events produce truths, both in art (and thus in theatre) and in politics. For Badiou, truth is the process of fidelity to an event.9

This conception of politics10 can be criticised because it does not take into account the antagonistic element of politics11. But regardless of his political theory, it can also be said that even Badiou does not claim an identity between politics and theatre. For Badiou, the sentence ‘Theatre is political because …’ could not be continued in this way. It should read: ‘Theatre is similar to politics because …’.

With his definition of the relationship between theatre and politics as a relationship of proximity without identity, Badiou hits on a point that other theories of political theatre also consider.

Oliver Marchart, for example, also states

‘a certain similarity of theatrical and political action’, “a fundamental comparability of the boards that mean the world with the public space of politics.”12

Marchart examines two of the prime examples of political theatre, the occupation of the Theatre Odéon in Paris in 1968 and the re-enactment of the Russian October Revolution in 1920 in St. Petersburg by the director Nikolai Evrejnoff. However, Marchart uses these examples to show the fundamental unrepresentability of antagonism, which is the essence of politics. For him, there is therefore only a rough approximation, a ‘passage à l’acte’ to antagonism. For him, the genre of theatre that most closely corresponds to the antagonism of politics is melodrama (whereby he is referring to the French and British stage melodramas of the 18th and early 19th centuries, not the musical genre). However, because he can hardly recommend melodrama to contemporary theatre as a future-oriented model for political theatre, he leaves the conclusion for future theatre to the English theatre scholar Janelle Reinert:

“In casting my comments within the discourse of what might be called ‘democratic civics’, I am attempting to theorize a theatrical space patronized by a consensual community of citizen-spectators who come together at stagings of the social imaginary in order to consider and experience affirmation, contestation and reworking of various material and discursive practices pertinent to the constitution of a democratic society.” 13

For Marchart, political theatre seems to be possible without all theatre being political for him or theatre being part of the political or of politics. Only an approach to politics is possible.

It is therefore impossible to find a valid reason why all theatre is political per se. The sentence ‘Theatre is political because …’ remains unfinished.

2 Jens Roselt

A completely different philosophically based definition of the structure of theatre can be found in Jens Roselt’s habilitation thesis ‘Phänomenologie des Theaters’ 14. It does without any reference to politics. However, Roselt does examine the particular structure of the community that a theatre performance creates. He analyses the theatre situation between performer (actor/actress) and audience (spectators) as a we, without any reference to politics.

Unlike Badiou, he does not parallel audience (theatre) and ‘eventful masses’ (politics), but rather defines the specificity of theatre closely oriented to the manifestations of contemporary theatre. Its audience is constituted in the ‘interplay of seriality and dissidence’15. Seriality is the interdependence of a collective, but one that is purely external, without individual reciprocal influence. On the other hand, a theatre audience is not completely determined by this seriality; everyone can reclaim their individual freedom at any time (by heckling, booing, leaving the auditorium, etc.). As an audience, one acts ‘together in individual difference’16.

Following the phenomenologist Aron Gurwitsch, Roselt distinguishes between three dimensions of we-experiences: partnership (“Partnerschaft”), community (“Gemeinschaft”) and covenant (“Bund”). All three can characterise the situation of a theatre performance:17 the encounter in a role (partnership), the experience of affiliation (community), emotional fusion (covenant). However, Roselt cites the Living Theatre’s production ‘Paradise Now’ (which was shown in January 1970 at the Berlin Akademie der Künste) as an example of this seemingly antiquated terminology from the 1930s18. Roselt can thus analyse the effect of the avant-garde theatre of the 1960s ‘as a new form of social experience’ 19 without declaring it ‘political’, although the Living Theatre explicitly saw itself as a political theatre in the radicalised succession of Erwin Piscator20. Roselt thus shows through precise analysis that new experimental theatre forms that overcome the traditional ‘viewing and listening arrangement’ of the theatre and offer an ‘exploration of the situational aspect’21 of theatre, do indeed make new forms of social experience possible for the audience, but these do not have to be equated with a political experience.

Or in the words of Oliver Marchart:

‘Not every social practice is a political practice.’22.

II ‘Theatre is political when …’

a) descriptive

1 Erwin Piscator

Erwin Piscator coined the term ‘political theatre’ in the 1920s. He was referring to his own  theatre, the Piscator Theatre. The term therefore originated from the perspective of the theatre makers, not as an analytical term of theatre observation. Because by ‘political theatre’ Piscator meant his theatre, which he created as a director and theatre manager, ‘political’ was not a descriptive term for him either. For him, political theatre is therefore necessarily a ‘proletarian-political theatre.’23. For him, the necessity of this theatre was based on the present, in which he developed his theatre in the 1920s and 1930s.

‘A time in which the relationships between the general public, the reorganisation of all relationships are on the agenda, can only see man in his position in society, as a political being.”24

Conditions that make every expression of life a political one also require a political theatre.

For Piscator, there is also non-political theatre, but only if a ruling class wants to keep theatre out of the power struggles of a society. For Piscator, the sentence would therefore be: ‘Theatre is political when it is necessary.’

2 Siegfried Melchinger

This view that political theatre is a special subspecies of theatre, alongside entertainment theatre, commercial theatre, children’s theatre, etc., is rarely held today. A prominent example of this view in the 1960s and 1970s, when the concept of ‘political theatre’ came back into the discussion, is Siegfried Melchinger’s comprehensive ‘Geschichte des politischen Theaters’25.

Melchinger’s account of theatre history is of little use for today’s discussion because, despite his knowledge of Living Theatre and Bread and Puppet Theatre, it only refers to theatre texts, to plays, and only to those that were still being performed in 1970. For him, theatre is always an object of politics. But politics is also a subject of theatre (plays).

‘Politics is an important and at times urgent theme of the theatre. But it has never been the only one, and it will and can be as little so as in life.”26.

For Melchinger, not all theatre is political, but his definition of the difference between political and apolitical theatre remains imprecise:

‘Political theatre sets up situations, processes that are important for many, most, perhaps all. It shows possible forms of behaviour in these situations; it shows them critically and appeals to criticism. To the criticism of the audience. Only when political theatre succeeds in involving the audience in the situations and events does it create the public sphere that is its most distinctive feature.’ 27.

The criterion of publicity applies to all types of (contemporary) theatre, as long as they are not private events. This also means that theatre tries to be important ‘for everyone’ – which it can never achieve in full. The counter-image of apolitical theatre is only pejoratively labelled with common terms such as ‘sentimental emotion’, ‘strange identification’, ‘beautiful or uplifting illusion’28.

Melchinger’s initially descriptive concept of political theatre becomes more normative in the course of his presentation. Not only should political theatre be critical, it should not serve the ‘intentions of ruling systems’ 29, but there should always be political theatre. Despite the ineffectiveness of political theatre, which Melchinger states at the end of his passage, he demands:

‘Now that nothing has been achieved, the task remains: to intervene in the arrogance of politicians through political theatre.’ 30

Melchinger’s ‘History of political theatre’ is written from the perspective of a theatre critic, and any critic cannot refrain from making judgements.

Preliminary conclusion:

There does not seem to be a truly descriptive concept of ‘political theatre’. But why?

To be continued

  1. Erika Fischer-Lichte, {Lemma} ‘Politisches Theater’ in: Erika Fischer-Lichte e.a. (ed.), Metzler Lexikon Theatertheorie. Stuttgart/Weimar: Metzler 2nd ed. 2014, pp. 260-262 ↵
  2. Badiou was a leading member of the ‘Union des communistes de France marxiste-léniniste’ UCF-ML from 1969-1985. In 1974, he was the leader of the group ‘Foudre’ (Lightning Strike), which blew up film screenings by throwing paint bags at the screen, and which also disrupted Ariane Mnouchine’s performances because it considered her work with immigrants to be wrong. He is the author of a tetralogy of plays ‘Le Cycle Ahmed’, his dialogue ‘La Républic de Platon’ was performed at the Avignon Festival in 2015. Detailed references to Badiou’s plays and their reception can be found in note 6 of Bruno Bosteel’s foreword to the English edition of Rhapsodie pour le théâtre {Alain Badiou, Rhapsody for the theatre. Edited and introduced by Bruno Bosteels. London: Verso, 2013 p.X-Xi}. This volume also contains an English version of a text by Badiou on his ‘Ahmed’ tetralogy {ibid. p.139-159}. The original French version of this text, including the play text of ‘Ahmed le subtil’ on the occasion of the performance in Reims and Avignon in 1994, can be found at numilog.com. ↵
  3. Alain Badiou, Rhapsodie für das Theater.  Eine kurze philosophische Abhandlung. Vienna: Passagen Verlag, 2015. p.49 ↵
  4. ‘Isomorphism {of theatre} with politics (taking into account the figurative distance).’ ibid. p.36 ↵
  5. ibid. p.33 ↵
  6. ibid p.34 ↵
  7. ibid. pp. 38, 43 ↵
  8. Ibid, p. 49 ↵
  9.  Oliver Marchart, Die politische Differenz. Zum politischen Denken bei Nancy, Lefort, Badiou, Laclau und Agamben. Suhrkamp, 4th ed. 2019, p. 169 ↵
  10. An English version of his essay on justice ‘Philosophy and Politics’ from 1999 is available on the Internet ↵
  11. Marchart, p. 177: ‘Badiou is led to his ethical narrow-mindedness because he does not want to understand politics as a space of immanence of intertwined forces {…}, but wants to maintain a strict separation between the state and a politics of truth in his two-world doctrine.’ trsl. G.P. ↵
  12. Oliver Machart, “On the stage of the political. The Street, the Theatre and the Political Aesthetics of the Sublime” {2004} https://transversal.at/transversal/0605/marchart/de ↵
  13. Janelle Reinelt, ‘Notes for a Radical Democratic Theatre: Productive Crises and the Challenge of Indeterminacy’, in: Jeanne Colleran and Jenny S. Spencer (eds.), Staging Resistance. Essays on Political Theatre, Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press 1998, p. 286. cited in German translation in: Marchart 2004 ↵
  14. Jens Roselt, Phänomenologie des Theaters. Munich: Wilhelm Fink, 2008 ↵
  15. Roselt p. 333 ↵
  16. Roselt p. 330-333 ↵
  17. Roselt p.345 ↵
  18. In my memory, it was a chaotic mess on stage that barely touched the audience, who were seated in two blocks on the two long sides of the stage in the middle. ↵
  19. Roselt p. 355 ↵
  20. Judith Melina: ‘Without question, the Living Theatre was always a political theatre. That was also always Piscator’s view.’ Erika Billetter, The Living Theatre. Paradise Now. Ein Bericht in Wort und Bild. Bern: Rütten + Loening, 1968, p.15f ↵
  21. Hans-Thies Lehmann, ‘Wie politisch ist postdramatisches Theater?’, In: H-Th.L., Das Politische Schreiben. Essays on theatre texts. Berlin: Theater der Zeit, 2002 {= Recherchen 12; first in: Theater der Zeit, October 2001}, p.35 ↵
  22. Oliver Marchart, book presentation Conflictual Aesthetics.University of Applied Arts Vienna ↵
  23. Erwin Piscator, Theater der Auseinandersetzung. Ausgewählte Schriften und Reden. Frankfurt/M: Suhrkamp, 1977, p. 17. This formulation can be found in an article that Piscator published in the ‘Rote Fahne’, the party newspaper of the KPD, on 1 January 1928 ↵
  24. Piscator p.26 ↵
  25. Siegfried Melchinger, Geschichte des politischen Theaters. Velber: Friedrich Verlag, 1971, developed from a series of lectures at the Stuttgart University of Music and Performing Arts in 1970/71 ↵
  26. ibid. p.9. From today’s perspective, Melchinger’s addition is amusing: ’There is no doubt that the dismantling of constraints and taboos that we are experiencing in this area also has a political relevance. But nobody will be so silly as to relegate the fact itself, the division of the human race into two sexes that relate to and mate with each other, as such to the responsibility of the politician.” trsl. G.P. ↵
  27. ibid. p. 17 ↵
  28. ibid. p. 17 ↵
  29. ibid. p.18 ↵
  30. ibid. p.418 ↵