Collective Traumatic Memory and Its Theatrical Models: Case Studies in Elie Wiesel and Aeschylus
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
COLLECTIVE TRAUMATIC MEMORY AND ITS THEATRICAL MODELS: CASE STUDIES IN ELIE WIESEL AND AESCHYLUS by Paul Wayne Wilson II B.A. in Theatre and Latin, Butler University, Indianapolis, 2000 M.A. in Theatre, Miami University, Oxford, OH, 2004 Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the Kenneth P. Dietrich School of Arts and Sciences in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy University of Pittsburgh 2014 UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH THE KENNETH P. DIETRICH SCHOOL OF ARTS AND SCIENCES This dissertation was presented by Paul Wayne Wilson II It was defended on January 28, 2014 and approved by Attilio Favorini, PhD, Professor Emeritus, Theatre Arts Kathleen George, PhD, Professor, Theatre Arts Akiko Hashimoto, PhD, Associate Professor, Sociology Dissertation Director: Bruce McConachie, PhD, Professor, Theatre Arts ii Copyright by Paul Wayne Wilson II 2014 iii COLLECTIVE TRAUMATIC MEMORY AND ITS THEATRICAL MODELS: CASE STUDIES IN ELIE WIESEL AND AESCHYLUS Paul Wayne Wilson II, PhD University of Pittsburgh, 2014 This dissertation synthesizes recent considerations that have emerged from theories of psychological trauma (namely, Post-Traumatic Stress) and cultural trauma (via sociologists Jeffrey Alexander, Neil Smelser, and Ron Eyerman), into what is called “collective trauma.” Further theoretical frameworks of socially distributed memory and collective memory are then employed to create a more robust understanding of the hybrid nature of both normative and traumatic memory. Using anthropologist Clifford Geertz's “models of” and “models for,” as well as linguist George Lakoff's and philosopher Mark Johnson's similarly-constructed notions of “metaphor” and “event,” the collective trauma concept is then brought to bear on three theatre events (plays in performance) – Elie Wiesel's two English language plays, 1973's Zalmen (or, The Madness of God), 1983's The Trial of God, and Aeschylus' 458 BC production of The Oresteia (Agamemnon, The Libation Bearers, and The Eumenides). Chapter One delineates the theoretical framework described above. Chapter Two combines Zalmen and The Trial of God into a single case study of texts and performances, in which it is determined that the former play is a failed model of individual and collective traumatic memory, while the latter is a successful model of those. This chapter focuses on the 1973 production at the Arena Theatre in Washington, DC, as well as its brief Broadway run at the Lyceum in 1974. Chapter Three employs the additional tools of physical and linguistic evidence, the etymology of the word trauma in Greek literature, and classicist Pat Easterling's process of revealing reception through iv evidence interpolation. Easterling's process and the theoretical considerations of Chapter One construct a picture of Athens' Great Dionysia in 458 BC. In so doing, Chapter Three reveals The Oresteia as a strong model of and for individual, collective, and cultural traumas. The brief conclusion uses collective memory as a litmus test for reflexivity and the agency of victims as trauma moves outward, from the collective into the cultural realm. v TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ......................................................................................................................................... viii I.0 CHAPTER ONE – TOWARD A THEATRICAL THEORY OF COLLECTIVE TRAUMATIC MEMORY ….................................................................................................................................................. 1 I.1 INTRODUCTION: WIESEL'S TRIAL …......................................................................... 1 I.2 THESIS ............................................................................................................................. 6 I.3 THE THEORETICAL SITES: MODEL, METAPHOR, AND EVENT ….................... 10 I.4 RATIONALE: A CROSS-DISCIPLINARY CALL TO ACTION …............................. 12 I.5 CULTURAL TRAUMA DEFINED …............................................................................ 14 I.6 INDIVIDUAL AND CULTURAL THEORIES AS DIALECTIC PROCESS …........... 18 I.7 THEATRE EVENT AS DIALECTIC SYNTHESIS ….................................................. 21 I.8 COLLECTIVE MEMORY AND SOCIALLY DISTRIBUTED MEMORY AS A MEANS OF REFLEXIVITY …...................................................................................... 23 I.9 DISSERTATION OUTLINE …...................................................................................... 32 II.0 CHAPTER TWO – CASE STUDY 1: ELIE WIESEL'S ZALMEN AND THE TRIAL OF GOD …........ 35 II.1 “THEATRE OF TRAUMA:” TRAUMATIC MEMORY AS AN INDICATOR OF COLLECTIVE TRAUMA................................................................................................ 35 II.2 DRAMATURGICAL BACKGROUNDS OF ZALMEN AND THE TRIAL OF GOD ... 39 II.3 ZALMEN AND GOD'S MADNESS AS A FAILED MODEL OF INDIVIDUAL TRAUMATIC MEMORY ............................................................................................... 64 II.4 THE FRAGMENTATION AND REASSEMBLING OF MEANING SYSTEM IN THE TRIAL OF GOD ............................................................................................................... 79 II.5 GOD ON TRIAL: METATHEATRICALITY AS MODEL FOR COLLECTIVE TRAUMATIC MEMORY ............................................................................................... 83 vi II.6 FICTIONALIZATION AND COMMUNICATION TO LARGER CARRIER GROUPS AND AUDIENCE PUBLICS…………………………………………………………... 89 II.7 SOCIALLY DISTRIBUTED AND COLLECTIVE MEMORY IN ZALMEN AND THE TRIAL OF GOD ……………………………………………………………………….. 95 II.8 PERFORMANCE HISTORY AND CRITICISM OF ZALMEN .................................... 98 III.0 CHAPTER THREE – CASE STUDY 2: TRAUMATIC NEXUS AND AESCHYLUS' THE ORESTEIA .................................................................................................................................................. 107 III.1 THE ORESTEIA AS A SITE OF MULTIPLE TRAUMAS .......................................... 107 III.2 ANCIENT GREEK CONCEPTUALIZATIONS OF TRAUMA: TRAUMA, NOSOS, AND MINĒSIPĒMÔN PONOS ..................................................................................... 111 III.3 ANCIENT GREEK AUDIENCE: AGAMEMNON AND RECEPTION THROUGH INTERPOLATION ........................................................................................................ 119 III.4 THE LIBATION BEARERS AND THE NEXUS OF INDIVIDUAL AND COLLECTIVE TRAUMAS .................................................................................................................... 129 III.5 THE ERINYES AS EMBODIMENTS OF TRAUMA IN THE LIBATION BEARERS AND THE EUMENIDES ............................................................................................... 137 III.6 THE AREOPAGUS COURT AND THE HISTORICAL ARC OF EUMENIDES …... 142 III.7 HISTORICAL PARALLELS TO THE ORESTEIA ...................................................... 147 III.8 RITUAL PARALLELS IN THE ORESTEIA, EXTERNAL AND INTERNAL .......... 159 III.9 THE AUDIENCE OF 458 BC AND ILLOCUTIONARY SUCCESS ......................... 169 IV. CONCLUSION …....................................................................................................................................... 179 IV.1 REVIEW OF THE THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK .................................................. 178 IV.2 MODELS OF AND MODELS FOR TRAUMATIC MEMORY ................................. 181 IV.3 COLLECTIVE MEMORY AS A TEST OF TRAUMATIC AGENCY ....................... 189 BIBLIOGRAPHY ..................................................................................................................................................... 192 vii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This dissertation was only made possible by a long list of teachers, scholars, and friends who encouraged me to find a subject I was passionate about, and that would keep my interest over three years of research and writing. They make up my “intellectual genealogy.” Special thanks goes to my advisor, Bruce McConachie, who always insisted on clear but comprehensive writing. I am also indebted to my committee members. Attilio “Buck” Favorini helped guide the early stages of the dissertation, eventually leading me to focus on traumatic memory. Kathleen George was instrumental to my writing style in the late stages. Akiko Hashimoto, by introducing me to the work of sociologists like Jeffrey Alexander, unknowingly helped to develop the overall shape of this work. Thanks also to the graduate faculty from the Theatre Master's program at Miami University of Ohio: especially Ann Elizabeth Armstrong, who challenged me intensely from day one, and Paul Jackson, who expanded my intellectual world while making Miami feel like home. Special thanks also to Dr. Scott Carlson, of Western Psychiatric in Pittsburgh. His insight into the reality of traumatic experience was valuable beyond measure. I also owe much of Chapter Three's final version to my friend, Laura Ferries, who knows far more about ancient civilizations that I do. This project would not have been possible without the support and patience of my loving family. Finally, this dissertation is dedicated to two dear friends. The first is Dr. Kevin A. viii Harris. Early conversations with him led me this topic. The second is William Doan, my Master's Thesis advisor, who has already given me a career's worth of insight and guidance ix I.0 CHAPTER ONE – TOWARD A THEATRICAL THEORY OF COLLECTIVE TRAUMATIC MEMORY I.1 INTRODUCTION: “WEISEL’S TRIAL” In late 1943, when future Nobel peace laureate