Theories of theatre 1: historical paradigms

Abstract

What is theatre theory? What makes a particular statement or argument about theatre ‘theoretical’ in comparison to other forms of discourse? There is, as so often, no easy answer. It has often been pointed out that in terms of their etymology, ‘theatre’ and ‘theory’ are in fact closely related. Both have their roots in the Greek word theoria (θeωρια), which has two quite different meanings: it can mean observation, examination, viewing or beholding and, more concretely, being a spectator at a festival or theatrical performance. In other words, the Greek term established a semantic field that linked both abstract theoretical reflection and direct theatrical observation. The term ‘theatre theory’ could be defined, according to Marvin Carlson, as ‘statements of general principles regarding the methods, aims, functions, and characteristics of this particular art form’ (Carlson 1984:10). Such statements are seldom comprehensive, as Carlson explains, but rather perforce selective, i.e. they treat particular facets of the theatre and are often penned by authors representing highly divergent fields such as philosophy, theology, rhetoric, painting, poetry and so on. In addition, such theoretical statements pursue quite different goals and strategies in terms of ‘what theatre is, has been, or should be’ (Carlson 1984: 10). Theatre theory can therefore comprise three temporal dimensions: the past, present or future. Each dimension also implies a different function and field of application.