Theatricality: The Specificity of Theatrical Language Author(s): Josette Féral and Ronald P. Bermingham Source: SubStance, Vol. 31, No. 2/3, Issue 98/99: Special Issue: Theatricality (2002), pp. 94-108 Published by: University of Wisconsin Press Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3685480 Accessed: 07-05-2015 23:05 UTC Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/ info/about/policies/terms.jsp JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. University of Wisconsin Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to SubStance. http://www.jstor.org This content downloaded from 129.97.143.188 on Thu, 07 May 2015 23:05:48 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Theatricality: The Specificityof Theatrical Language' JosetteFiral To definetheatricality, or the specificityof the theater,is not only to attemptto definewhat distinguishes theater from other genres, but to define what distinguishesit fromother kinds of spectacle-dance, performance art,or multi-mediaart. It is to bringthe natureof theateritself into focus againsta backgroundof individual theatrical practices, theories of stage-play, and aesthetics.It is to attemptto findparameters shared by all theatrical enterprisesfrom time immemorial. Although such a projectmay appear overly ambitious,its pertinencerequires an attemptto establishsuch a definition.This articleis such a step,seeking to establishpoints of reference forsubsequent reflection. During the 20thcentury, the very foundations of theaterwere turned upside-down,as were thoseof otherarts. What had been a clearlydefined theatricalaesthetic at theend ofthe 19th century, outlining normative practice, was, duringthe 20th century, systematically reexamined. At thesame time, stagepractice began to distanceitself from the text, assigning it a new place in thetheatrical enterprise.2 Once undersiege, the text was no longerable to guaranteethe theatricality of the stage. Thus, it is understandablethat those concerned began to question the specificityof the theatricalact itself, especially since this very specificityappeared to influenceother stage practicesas well- dance,performance art, opera, and so on. The emergenceof theatricality in areastangentially related to the theater seems to have as a corollarythe dissolutionof the limitsbetween genres, and of the formaldistinctions between practices,from dance-theater to multi-mediaarts, including happenings, performance, and new technologies. The specificityof theater is moreand moredifficult to define.To theextent that the spectacularand the theatricalacquired new forms,the theater, suddenlydecentered, was obligedto redefineitself.3 From that time on, its specificitywas no longerevident. How thenare we to definetheatricality today? Should we speak ofit in thesingular or in theplural? Is theatricalitya property that belongs uniquely to the theater,or can it also be found in the quotidian? As a quality- 94 ? Board of Regents,University of WisconsinPress, 2002 SubStance# 98/99, Vol. 31, nos. 2 & 3, 2002 This content downloaded from 129.97.143.188 on Thu, 07 May 2015 23:05:48 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Theatricality 95 understoodhere in theKantian sense of the term-does theatricalitypre-exist itsmanifestation in thetheatrical object, with the objectthen becoming the conditionof its emergence?Or is theatricalitythe consequence of a certain theatricalprocess relatedeither to realityor to the subject?These are the questionsI would like to considerhere. The HistoricalContext The notionof theatricalityseems to have appeared at thesame timeas thenotion of literarity. However, its dissemination in criticalliterature was less rapid; in fact,the textsthat I have been able to assemble dealingwith theatricalitydate back only 10 years.4 This means that attempts to conceptualizethe notion of theatricality are linkedto recentpreoccupations with the theoryof theater.One mightwell object,maintaining that such worksas Aristotle'sPoetics, Diderot's Paradoxe du comidien,and theprefaces of Racine and VictorHugo, amongothers, are effortsto theorizein matters relatedto the theater. But "theorizing" understood according to contemporary usage as a reflectionupon thespecificity of genres and upon abstractconcepts (sign,semiotization, ostension, fragment, distance, displacement, etc.), is a much morerecent phenomenon. As Roland Bartheshas pointedout, the attempt to definea theoryof theater is itselfthe sign ofan era fascinatedby theory. Recentdissemination of the notion of theatricality can lead us to forget its more distanthistory. In fact,we can retracethe notionof theatricality back tothe first texts of Evreinoff (1922) who spokeof "teatralnost," stressing the significanceof the suffix"ost" in orderto underlinethe importanceof his discovery.5 Lexically speaking, theatricality is both poorly defined and etymologicallyunclear. It seemsto be muchlike the "tacit concept" defined by Michael Polany: "a concreteidea thatone can use directlybut thatone can onlydescribe indirectly."6 Itis a conceptthat one associatesin a privileged way withthe theater. Theatricalityas a Propertyof the Quotidian By examiningconditions that accompany various manifestationsof theatricalityboth on and offstage, one can demonstratethat theatricality is notstrictly a theatricalphenomenon. Let us look at a fewpossible scenarios: 1stscenario: You entera theater.The play has notyet begun. In frontof you is a stage; the curtainis open; the actorsare absent.The set, in plain view,seems to await thebeginning of the play. Is theatricalityat workhere? If one answersin theaffirmative, one recognizesthat the set alone can convey a certaintheatricality. Although the theatricalprocess has not yet SubStance# 98/99, Vol. 31, nos. 2 & 3, 2002 This content downloaded from 129.97.143.188 on Thu, 07 May 2015 23:05:48 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 96 JosetteFeral been set in motion,certain constraints are alreadyimposed, certain signs are alreadyin place. The spectatorknows what to expectfrom the place in whichhe findshimself; he know what to expectfrom the scenic design-a play.7Because a semiotizationof space has alreadyoccurred, the spectator perceivesthe theatricality of thestage, and of thespace surroundinghim. We can thereforedraw a firstconclusion: the presence of the actor is not a prerequisiteof theatricality.8In this instance,space is the vehicle of theatricality.The subjectperceives certain relations within that space; he perceivesthe spectacularnature of the stage.Space seems fundamentalto theatricality,for the passage fromthe literary to the theatricalis firstand foremostcompleted through a spatialrealization of thetext. 2nd scenario: In the subway,you witnessan argumentbetween two passengers.One is smokingand the otherstrongly protesting, reminding thefirst that smoking on thesubway is againstthe rules. The firstrefuses to comply;insults and threatsare exchanged;tension mounts. Spectators of this exchange,the otherpassengers watch attentively;several comment, takingsides in theargument. The trainpulls intoa stationand stopsin front of an imposingbillboard advertising cigarettes. The smokerexits the train, and forthe benefit of all theinterested observers, points out the disproportion betweenthe small NO SMOKING sign in thetrain and the huge billboard promotingsmoking that occupies the entire wall of thestation platform. Is theatricalitypresent in thisinstance? One would probablysay not, forthe argument did not appear staged,nor had thenon-participants been formallyinvited to watch.Furthermore, the exchange did notappear to be a fictionalsituation, for the parties seemed genuinely involved in thequarrel. However,spectators exiting at thesame stationwould have discovered thatthe two antagonistswere in factan actorand actresstaking part in what Boal definedas an "invisibletheatrical production." Knowing this,and bearingin mind thatthe spectators'participation was involuntary,would one now claim thattheatricality had been present?After the fact,it would seem so. We mightconclude that in thisinstance, theatricality seems to stemfrom the spectator'sawareness of a theatricalintention addressed to him. This awarenessaltered the way in whichhe looked at whatwas takingplace; it forcedhim to see theaterwhere before he saw only a chance occurrence.9 The spectatorthereby transforms into fiction what he thoughtwas a quotidian event.Re-semiotizing the space ofthe subway car, the spectator was able to displace signsand to interpretthem differently, revealing both the fictional natureof the performers' behavior, and thepresence of illusion where only commonplacereality had beenexpected. In thisinstance, theatricality appears SubStance# 98/99, Vol. 31, nos. 2 & 3, 2002 This content downloaded from 129.97.143.188 on Thu, 07 May 2015 23:05:48 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Theatricality 97 as a resultof the performers'affirmed theatrical intention. The spectator mustbe aware of the performers'secret; without such awareness thereis misunderstandingand absenceof theatricality. 3rd scenario:You are seatedat a sidewalkcaf6 watching passers-by who have no desire to be seen, nor any intentionof