Page 124 - Vinkler, Jonatan, Ana Beguš and Marcello Potocco. Eds. 2019. Ideology in the 20th Century: Studies of literary and social discourses and practices. Koper: University of Primorska Press
P. 124
Ideology in the 20th Century: studies of literary and social discourses and practices
has been taken by Goran Injac. But—do drama and theatre really pos-
sess such a power that they can ‘discuss crucial moral and social issues’,
or do they just yearn for something that does not exist (any more)? Fur-
thermore, has theatre ever possessed real political power? Or has it always
been, above all, the space for discussion, rituals, addressing and reflection
on issues?
Lehmann (1999), in much a similar way observes that theatre at the
end of the millennium is not a place to perform the crucial social value
conflicts. For Lehmann, “[i]ssues that we call ‘political’ have to do with
social power” (Lehmann 2006, 175). The power today is organized as a
web, in which even the leading political elite hardly have any real pow-
er over economico-political processes any more. Therefore, argues Leh-
mann, political conflicts “increasingly elude intuitive perception and
124 cognition and consequently scenic representation” (Lehmann 2006, 175).
While in the past the power was embedded in the representatives of
political elite or in the parliament parties, today the political power is dif-
fused and scattered. In the age of parliamentary democracy and global
capital the multi-national corporations in fact possess greater power than
political leaders of a majority of the states.
For Lehmann, theatre today has lost almost all political functions it
possessed in the history—it is not the centre of ancient polis any more nor
national theatre whose aim was to strengthen national awareness. Leh-
mann believes that theatre as the site of class-specific propaganda and po-
litical self-affirmation (as it was in 1920s) is over since much more faster
and widespread electronic media have overtaken it. After the fall of re-
pressive regimes in Eastern Europe it has also lost its function of disput-
ing and criticizing while mass media have been censored (Lehmann 1999,
450–451).
While deeply skeptical about representational political theatre, Le-
hmann offers an alternative: the shift to the politics of perception. He
claims: “The politics of theatre is a politics of perception” (Lehmann 2006,
185). Lehmann believes that true political in theatre is not related to its
contents or topic but is rather embedded in the forms of perception. Pol-
itics of perception is an aesthetic of responsibility—“the mutual impli-
cation of actors and spectators in the theatrical production of images” (Le-
hmann 2006, 186), which could be one of rare answers to ubiquitous
spectacle and circulating simulacra. Aesthetics of responsibility, which
Lehmann calls for, means to be aware of one’s own embeddedness in the
world, of one’s own affective participation and responsibility (also: re-
sponse-ability) within it.
has been taken by Goran Injac. But—do drama and theatre really pos-
sess such a power that they can ‘discuss crucial moral and social issues’,
or do they just yearn for something that does not exist (any more)? Fur-
thermore, has theatre ever possessed real political power? Or has it always
been, above all, the space for discussion, rituals, addressing and reflection
on issues?
Lehmann (1999), in much a similar way observes that theatre at the
end of the millennium is not a place to perform the crucial social value
conflicts. For Lehmann, “[i]ssues that we call ‘political’ have to do with
social power” (Lehmann 2006, 175). The power today is organized as a
web, in which even the leading political elite hardly have any real pow-
er over economico-political processes any more. Therefore, argues Leh-
mann, political conflicts “increasingly elude intuitive perception and
124 cognition and consequently scenic representation” (Lehmann 2006, 175).
While in the past the power was embedded in the representatives of
political elite or in the parliament parties, today the political power is dif-
fused and scattered. In the age of parliamentary democracy and global
capital the multi-national corporations in fact possess greater power than
political leaders of a majority of the states.
For Lehmann, theatre today has lost almost all political functions it
possessed in the history—it is not the centre of ancient polis any more nor
national theatre whose aim was to strengthen national awareness. Leh-
mann believes that theatre as the site of class-specific propaganda and po-
litical self-affirmation (as it was in 1920s) is over since much more faster
and widespread electronic media have overtaken it. After the fall of re-
pressive regimes in Eastern Europe it has also lost its function of disput-
ing and criticizing while mass media have been censored (Lehmann 1999,
450–451).
While deeply skeptical about representational political theatre, Le-
hmann offers an alternative: the shift to the politics of perception. He
claims: “The politics of theatre is a politics of perception” (Lehmann 2006,
185). Lehmann believes that true political in theatre is not related to its
contents or topic but is rather embedded in the forms of perception. Pol-
itics of perception is an aesthetic of responsibility—“the mutual impli-
cation of actors and spectators in the theatrical production of images” (Le-
hmann 2006, 186), which could be one of rare answers to ubiquitous
spectacle and circulating simulacra. Aesthetics of responsibility, which
Lehmann calls for, means to be aware of one’s own embeddedness in the
world, of one’s own affective participation and responsibility (also: re-
sponse-ability) within it.
