NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY From Gestus to the Abject: Feminist Strategies in Contemporary British and American Radical Theatre A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS for the degree DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Field of Theatre and Drama By Stefka Georgieva Mihaylova EVANSTON, ILLINOIS June 2008 2 © Copyright 2008 by Mihaylova, Stefka Georgieva All rights reserved. Abstract 3 From Gestus to the Abject: Feminist Strategies in Contemporary British and American Radical Theatre Stefka Georgieva Mihaylova This dissertation examines performance and textual techniques used by American and British artists to provoke discussion about the politics of viewing. I theorize a model of spectatorship which exposes the race and gender symbolism of actors’ and spectators’ bodies and its effects on meaning-making in the performer-spectator encounter. In contrast to other models of feminist and radical spectatorship influenced by Brecht, which analyze race and gender as material economic and social relations, this model also considers their affective dimensions and alerts spectators to the cultural beliefs and prejudices that influence viewing. My analysis brings together two theoretically disparate concepts, commonly regarded as incompatible: the Brechtian gestus , a distancing device which calls attention to the economic motivation of representation; and the psychoanalytic concept of abjection , an emotionally-charged instance in which established paradigms of knowledge fail, revealing the cultural contingency of meaning. By accounting for the symbolic, non-material aspects of race and gender, my case studies contest the premise on which Brechtian theatre and social realism predicate critical intervention: the assumption that a spectator can observe the stage objectively from a position external to representation. Countering this assumption, the performances I analyze show how spectators are positioned as socially-situated participants, which initiates dialogue on the ethics of viewing. I draw on political theories of democratic contestation and feminist standpoint theories which account for the effects of imagination and affect on social interactions. The case studies include works by Suzan-Lori Parks, Sarah Kane, and Forced Entertainment, and the Upstream Theatre. Acknowledgements 4 I am deeply grateful to all who assisted me throughout this project. This dissertation would not have been completed without the unfailing patience, enthusiasm, and guidance of my dissertation advisor Tracy C. Davis. Thank you, Tracy! My sincere thanks to the members of my dissertation committee Jennifer Brody, Christopher Lane, and Susan Manning for their insightful critiques and deep intellectual engagement with my writing. I am particularly indebted to my colleagues Amber Day, Tony Korol, Christina McMahon, Jesse Njus, Dan Smith, and Ann White for thoughtfully reading multiple drafts and providing invaluable emotional support. I would like to extend thanks to the institutions that subsidized my dissertation research and writing: The Graduate School at Northwestern University for a Graduate Research Grant and a Dissertation Year Fellowship and the Alice Berlin Kaplan Institute for the Humanities at Northwestern University for a Graduate Affiliate Fellowship. My deepest thanks to my parents and my brother for their love and encouragement; thank you for believing in me. I am also grateful to Luke and Matt Haddock for sharing all my joys and worries ever since I came to Chicago and for making me feel at home. CONTENTS 5 Chapter 1. Introduction 5 2. Failures of Translation: Sarah Kane and Suzan-Lori Parks’s Radical Formalism 30 3. Viewers in Distress: Theatre as a Practice of Democratic Contestation 77 4. Whose Performance is it, anyway? Performed Criticism as a Feminist Strategy 144 5. Conclusion 184 Bibliography 195 Chapter One 6 Introduction In Act I of Caryl Churchill’s landmark Brechtian feminist play Cloud 9 (1979), Betty, the wife of British colonial official Clive, breaks the fourth wall and addresses the audience: Betty I live for Clive. The whole aim of my life Is to be what he looks for in a wife. I am a man’s creation as you see, And what men want is what I want to be. 1 The stage directions specify that Betty is to be played by a male actor. Thus her statement “I am a man’s creation as you see” gestically exposes the distinction between actor and character, and at the same time argues that gender norms are social constructs, not nature. The actor’s statement “as you see” conveys Brecht’s modernist assumption that though representation and reality may overlap, they are essentially distinct. In Act II, the represented time shifts abruptly from the Victorian period to the late-1970s, but only twenty-five years have elapsed for the characters. This shift, Elin Diamond comments, alerts spectators to the ways in which their own preconceptions of dramatic conventions – in this instance, an expectation that fictional time should advance in a linear and logical fashion – inform their acts of looking. 2 Seeing truthfully is presented as contingent upon spectators’ ability to reflect on such expectations. In the context of the play, the power of dramatic conventions is comparable to the power of gender norms; seeing these norms truthfully implies seeing them as norms: as socially-contingent, not as universally 1 Caryl Churchill, Cloud Nine (New York: Routledge, 1995) 4. 2 Elin Diamond, “Refusing the Romanticism of Identity: Narrative Interventions in Churchill, Benmussa, Duras,” Performing Feminisms: Feminist Critical Theory and Theatre , ed. Sue-Ellen Case (Baltimore and London: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1990) 95-96. valid. At the end of the play, a liberated modern-time Betty comes to terms with her 7 oppressed Victorian self. Diamond deems this optimistic ending counter-critical: turning historicist critique into “ahistorical romance.” 3 But to me, the ending is expressive of the same faith in spectators’ desire for truth and knowledge that underlies Brecht’s own plays. By the time Churchill wrote Far Away (2000), two decades after Cloud 9 , her faith in spectators seems to have dwindled. Rather than an expression of a desire for truth, spectatorship in Far Away is presented as the effect of meticulous training in selective social blindness. The play opens with a conversation between Joan, a pre-teen girl, and her aunt Harper. Joan cannot sleep. She was already in bed, she tells her aunt, when she heard someone outside scream. It must have been an owl, Harper says. Joan, however, thought it was a person. Trying to figure out who screamed, she went through the window and onto a tree outside it from where she saw her uncle and a number of strange people do something incomprehensible. Her uncle was having a party with his friends, Harper suggests. But then Joan admits that she got off the tree limb and walked into the yard. She heard people crying in a lorry, and in the shed, and saw blood on the ground. Confronted by this new information, Harper changes her story. There was no party. Joan’s uncle was busy helping people escape from an evil persecutor. Then, Joan wonders, why was uncle hitting them? Why did he hit one of the children with a metal stick? Why was there so much blood? Harper is momentarily at a loss, but then comes up with an explanation. One of the people was a traitor, and the stricken child was the child of that traitor. Joan accepts this story and agrees to support her uncle’s noble cause by helping Harper clean the yard in the morning. The dialogue stages the intricate mechanisms of discursive manipulation in oppressive political regimes, also explored by Churchill in Softcops (1984) and Vinegar Tom (1976). “It was dark,” Harper says, challenging the truthfulness of Joan’s account. “Yes,” Joan responds, 3 Diamond, “Refusing the Romanticism of Identity,” 98. “but I did see.” “Now what did you imagine you saw in the dark?” Harper counters. 4 By the 8 end of the scene, Joan willingly surrenders her own knowledge for Harper’s appealing interpretation. The negotiation over what Joan saw and what it stood for also implicitly comments on realist spectatorship, mimicking viewers’ suspension of disbelief and the creation of belief in the theatrical illusion. Acts II and III show the outcomes of such trained blindness. In Act II, a grown-up Joan designs spectacular hats intended to adorn the heads of prisoners who march towards their death in a grotesque parody of a fashion parade. It is a pity they burn the hats with the bodies, Joan tells a fellow designer. Crucially, the spectator that Joan represents is not an innocent victim of illusion but willingly turns a blind eye to atrocity, refusing the responsibility that seeing through illusion would entail. In Act III, the characters pay the price for their passive complicity with illusion. A war has begun, forging brief and fantastic alliances. The cats and the French fight against the Latvian pigs and the dentists. No one and nothing is left neutral. Distinctions between reality and illusion have collapsed into a disorienting nightmare. Considered together, the two plays illustrate a shift in the concept of radical spectatorship in British and American theatre practice and scholarship at the turn of the twenty-first century: from Brechtian and social realist models, assuming that reality and representation are essentially distinct, to a yet undefined model accounting for the postmodern insistence on the contingency of this distinction. Strongly influenced