Combating Language: Monologue use in the theatre of Yasmina Reza by Natasha Wahid B.A., University of Michigan, 2011 Thesis in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts in the Department of French Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences © Natasha Wahid 2015 SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY Summer 2015 Approval Name: Natasha Wahid Degree: Master of Arts Title: Combating Language: Monologue use in the theatre of Yasmina Reza Examining Committee: Chair: Dr. Catherine Black Associate Professor Dr. Jorge Calderón Senior Supervisor Associate Professor Dr. Joy Palacios Supervisor Assistant Professor Dr. Adina Balint-Babos External Examiner Assistant Professor Department of French Studies University of Winnipeg Date Defended/Approved: July 02, 2015 ii Abstract In 1977, Roland Barthes presented a theory during a lecture at Collège de France: language is fascist. Language obliges us to speak rather than enables us to speak. Language houses power, and it is the duty of the intellectual to challenge the powers that be. Barthes posited that literature, for various reasons, including its constant shifting and transformation, allows for a writer to challenge the system of language within the written word. In 1987, Yasmina Reza’s first play premiered in Paris. In this analysis, I examine Reza’s theatre canon, which includes eight plays to date, looking particularly at her use of monologue, within the context of Barthes’ theory. Monologue is often a significant moment in theatre, however Reza employs monologue in seemingly nonsensical ways. In this analysis, I examine how Reza’s use of monologue challenges the system of language, both within her texts and within the sphere of performance. Keywords: Barthes; language; theatre; monologue; Reza, Yasmina; power iii Dedication For John. iv Acknowledgements I would like to acknowledge my supervisor Jorge, who helped me to discover my subject and aided me in bringing this thesis to fruition. I would also like to thank Joy Palacios, whose enthusiastic demeanour encouraged me during each of our interactions. I want very much to acknowledge my parents, Susan and Haroon Wahid, who continue to support me in my every endeavour, as well as Alison Roach, Sarah McKellar, and Megan McKellar, whose consideration enabled me to write furiously from home. I would also like to acknowledge Andre Dorais, whose kindness, love and support enabled me to persevere when I was exhausted and, ultimately, to finish this thesis. Finally, I want to acknowledge the brilliant Yasmina Reza, whose work captured me immediately and continues to fascinate me. v Table of Contents Approval ............................................................................................................................. ii Abstract ............................................................................................................................. iii Dedication ......................................................................................................................... iv Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................ v Table of Contents .............................................................................................................. vi Chapter 1. Introduction ............................................................................................... 1 Chapter 2. Au début ................................................................................................... 11 Chapter 3. Grande Renommée ................................................................................. 29 Chapter 4. Après “Art” .............................................................................................. 47 Chapter 5. Carnage .................................................................................................... 68 Chapter 6. Conclusion ............................................................................................... 84 References .................................................................................................................. 92 vi Chapter 1. Introduction In order to understand my study of contemporary French playwright, Yasmina Reza, and her use of monologue throughout her plays, I must take you back to 1977, prior to the publishing, performing, and even, in all likelihood, the writing of her first play. Roland Barthes had just been elected Chair of Literary Semiology at the Collège de France and delivered an inaugural lecture, which was published as Leçon in 1978. All Barthes citations are taken from the English translation by Richard Howard entitled “Inaugural Lecture, Collège de France” published by Farrar, Straus and Giroux, Inc. In this lecture, Barthes presents a theory regarding language and literature, namely his view of language as fascist and his view of literature as a strategy by which to subvert said fascism. Fascism is defined here as a political ideology marked by authoritarianism, which is characterized by absolute or blind obedience to an authority. It is often associated with militaristic nationalism (an individual must be loyal to their nation-state over their own interests), and the idea of innate social hierarchy1. For Barthes, language is an authoritarian dictator, demanding that we submit to its codes and constraints, unyielding in its rigid structure. He begins his lecture with an interrogation of the definition of power as a single thing: some have it and some do not. “And yet, what if power were plural, like demons?” he demands (459), presenting an idea of “powers” as everywhere and on all sides, existing even in the most minute levels of social exchange. As such, power does not rest 1 “authoritarianism” and “fascism” from Encyclopedia Britannica. 1 solely in the hands of those we consider powerful, such as political leaders or dominant groups, but in the hands of the masses as well. In its plurality, power is omnipresent: each one of us participates in exchanges of power, no matter our place in the social hierarchy. “For if [power] is plural in social space, power is, symmetrically, perpetual in historical time,” (459/460) says Barthes, explaining that, throughout man’s history, power, defeated in one place, reappears in another. It is at this point that Barthes arrives at language: “The object in which power is inscribed, for all of human eternity, is language, or to be more precise, its necessary expression: the language we speak and write” (460). Language houses power – it perpetuates dominant ideologies, it gives voice to dominant opinions; its structure, in and of itself, dominates communication, demanding that we operate within its bounds. Stereotypes are imbedded in language, taken as meaning. Thus, power is innate in the code of language. Barthes reminds us that the oppressive nature of speech often goes unnoticed, even though, as a classification, speech is oppressive. “All classifications are oppressive,” (460) he explains, referencing Roman Jakobson2 who defined a speech-system not by what it allows one to say, but by what it obliges one to say. He hammers home this point with a brief analysis of the demands of the French language: I am obliged to posit myself first as subject before stating the action which will henceforth be no more than my attribute: what I do is merely a consequence and consecution of what I am […] I must always choose between the masculine and feminine, for the neuter and the dual are forbidden me. Further, I must indicate my relation to the other person by resorting to either tu or vous; social or affective suspension is denied me. (460) According to Barthes, as soon as it is spoken, speech is in the service of power; he expounds, describing the two categories of speech: “the authority of assertion” and “the gregariousness of repetition” (461). Speech is assertive: any expressions of doubt or negation or uncertainty require particular mechanisms. Speech is also only 2 Russian-American linguist and literary theorist (1896-1982). 2 understood insofar as its signs are recognized or repeated. This means that, in speech, the speaker is both assertive and passive, both maître and esclave: “I assert tellingly what I repeat” (461). If the forces of power and servility are simultaneously at work in speech, how then can one ever be free, asks Barthes? Freedom is defined here as “not only the capacity to escape power but also and especially the capacity to subjugate no one,” (461) therefore, freedom can only exist outside of language. But, of course, there is no exterior to human language; it has no exit3. It is at this point in the lecture that Barthes throws a lifeline to his auditors and readers, undoubtedly despairing over their inevitable participation in the fascist code of language; he presents a workaround in the form of literature, that is “the practice of writing.” It is through literature, explains Barthes, that we are able to cheat speech. “This salutary trickery, this evasion, this grand imposture which allows us to understand speech outside the bounds of power, in the splendor of a permanent revolution of language, I for one call literature” (462). Here, I must interject briefly. Barthes focuses on spoken language and writing as a strategy for escaping from the inescapable, however, in my analysis of Reza’s plays, I will also examine the realm of performance as a viable “exit”. Reza writes words that are meant to be spoken, to be interpreted and imbued with meaning outside of the words themselves: consider