Theatre of the Oppressed is a set of dramatic techniques, created by Augusto Boal, that aims at engaging the audience in social issues and invite the spectators to reflect on them and take action. This article explains how Theatre of the Oppressed acts as a critical pedagogy, emphasizing the concept of praxis.
The Arts have a strong transformative power. They can raise awareness of social issues, propose solutions, provoke reflection, and amplify the voices of those who cannot find spaces to speak out elsewhere. In the scenario discussed in this article, there is a theatrical form thought exclusively to think and promote change through the Arts. Theatre of the Oppressed (TO) was created by the Brazilian theatre practitioner Augusto Boal, during the Brazilian military dictatorship. He was sent to exile in 1971 and continued his work in many other parts of the world (Dwyer, 2005). One of his most important concepts is what he calls spec-actors, which is having the audience at the centre of the performance, acting out the oppressions they have lived or still live and the solutions to them (Boal, 1979). Added to this is the role of the Joker, who works as a mediator between the stage and the spect-actors (Boal, 1979). The main idea is that, by acting out their own problems and solutions, the spect-actors will acquire tools to deal with them in their own lives (Österlind, 2008). That comes from the fact that TO has its roots in critical pedagogy (Howard, 2004), a problem-solving and student-centered philosophy that promotes critical and political awareness (Nouri & Seyed, 2014), aiming at social transformation (Schroeter, 2013). This article will explain the role of TO as a representative of critical pedagogy in the field of theatre.
One of the aims of TO is to challenge hegemonic theatre and propose a kind of theatre that promotes liberation and freedom (Österlind, 2008). In his book, Theatre of the Oppressed, Boal (1979) uses the first chapter to critique Aristotle’s Poetic and to propose an alternative to it with his TO. Aristotle’s Poetic is a guide for dramaturgs to write their plays for the ancient Greek theatre contests, with rigid rules of what the perfect tragedy would be like. This work is the basis for all of western theatre that followed (Dwyer, 2005). One of its main concepts is the catharsis, a strong empathy that the audience should have towards the flaws of the tragic hero, creating an identification with the aim of teaching them lessons about the morals and virtues of the time when the character went through a tragic ending (Boal, 1979). However, Boal believed that the audience would be oppressed by traditional theatre. In his opinion, those on stage are the only ones who have a voice during the performance. That voice was back then and still is representative of a specific part of the population, making theatre a tool for the maintenance of hegemonic structures (Snyder-Young, 2011), which t critical pedagogy tries to dissolute (Nouri & Seyed, 2014).
Boal’s critique of the Poetic was not free from being criticized. Dwyer (2005) agrees with Boal’s critique and acknowledges that the Poetic was used as a tool to perpetuate the power of the elites in Ancient Greece. However, he highlights the fact that Brecht had said the same decades before. Brecht proposes the opposite of catharsis, the alienating effect, which aims at distancing the characters and the story from the audience to enable reflection about what is being performed (Snyder-Young, 2011). As a counter argument to this critique, the influence of Brecht in Boal’s work is evident (Snyder-Young, 2011). In Theatre of the Oppressed, Boal (1979) claims that the aesthetics of the Poetic should be replaced by Brecht’s aesthetics, so Boal has always credited Brecht in his critique. Dwyer (2005) also says that Boal’s practices would not make sense anymore, once he was exiled and left the context of the dictatorship and started working in, what Dwyer (2005, p. 363) called, “First-World settings”. He finds the Rainbow of Desires, a branch of TO which aims at giving the spect-actors the chance to act on more individual problems, particularly problematic in the context of having TO as an alternative to the Poetic because of its more individualistic, rather than social, nature. Österlind (2008), on the other hand, argues that developing the individual’s response against oppression is paramount for the development of a society. Therefore, even when working on individual issues, Boal is challenging hegemonic theatrical structures.
Besides the aforementioned influence of Brecht in Boal’s work, Paulo Freire, from whom he borrows part of his main work’s name, Pedagogy of the Oppressed (Freire, 1970), is also crucial for developing his work (Snyder-Young, 2011). When analyzing his critique of the Poetic, it is possible to realise the link between what he proposes and what is proposed by critical pedagogy, especially Freire’s (1970) concept of praxis, which is the correlation of action and reflection. One of the critiques that critical pedagogy often receives is that there are few indications of how it can be used in practice (Nouri & Seyed, 2014). Nonetheless, when analyzing TO through the lenses of praxis, it is possible to bridge this gap, as it invites the spect-actors to reflect upon their reality and scenically explore actions to change it (Schroeter, 2013). However, it is important to realise that each educator will follow the philosophies of critical pedagogy, and hence TO too, in a different way. Howard (2004) argues the dangers of following Boal’s system by the book, as the context where it happens plays such an important role in the outcomes of the performance. Aligned to this thought, Macedo (1970) claims that, because of its dialogical nature, critical pedagogy cannot be faced as a method.
Another key point of critical pedagogy that can be found in TO is the dissolution of authority. When Boal shifts the focus of hegemonic theatre, he is giving space for the expression of those who were not represented on stage (Howard, 2004). Hence, it is important to be attentive to the role of authority that teachers play as Jokers, when TO is being applied at schools. There are many layers of power relationships when talking about children/teenagers and adults, teachers and students and, at many times, social and economic differences (Snyder-Young, 2011). When describing her experience in the drama lessons she taught, Snyder-Young (2011) emphasises the fact that there were moments when her group of students reproduced oppressions instead of taking a more progressive way to approach the themes worked. However, it seems that she is assuming her way of reducing oppression is better than that of the students who live those oppressions. Paulo Freire (1970) believes that people should have the autonomy to think for themselves and make their own choices based on their life experiences. Thus, the role of the Joker is not to interfere in the spect-actors solutions to their oppression, but to facilitate their way into getting to their own conclusions (Boal, 1979) to foster a critical and emancipatory education.
There are many characteristics from critical pedagogy that can be found in the core of Boal’s work and those who use it nowadays, making it an important representative of critical pedagogy in the field of theatre or an important representative of theatre in the field of critical pedagogy. Some of the main work written about this practice focuses on the theories behind TO or on the description of the workshops taught, but there is not much literature about the long-term impacts TO has on the communities where it was taught. Studies about how the conscientisation of the spect-actors and real-life actions they take (praxis) based on their experiences with TO could be interesting to show the results of critical pedagogy when put into practice.
References
Boal, A. (1979) Theatre of the Oppressed. Theatre Communication Group.
Boal, A. (1992) Games for Actors and Non-Actors. Routledge.
Snyder-Young, D. (2011). Rehearsals for revolution? Theatre of the Oppressed, dominant discourses, and democratic tensions. Research in Drama Education: The Journal of Applied Theatre and Performance, 16(1), 29–45. https://doi.org/10.1080/13569783.2011.541600
Dwyer, P. (2005). Theoria Negativa: Making Sense of Boal’s Reading of Aristotle. Modern Drama, 48(4), 635–658. https://doi.org/10.3138/md.48.4.635
Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the Oppressed. Continuum.
Howard, L. A. (2004). Speaking theatre/doing pedagogy: re‐visiting theatre of the oppressed. Communication Education, 53(3), 217–233. https://doi.org/10.1080/0363452042000265161
Macedo, D. (1970). Introduction. In: Freire, P. Pedagogy of the Oppressed. Continuum. (pp. 11-17)
Nouri, A., & Sajjadi, S. M. (2014). Emancipatory Pedagogy in Practice: Aims, Principles and Curriculum Orientation. The International Journal of Critical Pedagogy, 5(2).
Österlind, E. (2008). Acting out of habits – can Theatre of the Oppressed promote change? Boal’s theatre methods in relation to Bourdieu’s concept of habitus. Research in Drama Education: The Journal of Applied Theatre and Performance, 13(1), 71–82. https://doi.org/10.1080/13569780701825328
Schroeter, S. (2013). “The way it works” doesn’t: Theatre of the Oppressed as Critical Pedagogy and Counternarrative. Canadian Journal of Education / Revue Canadienne de l’éducation, 36(4), 394–415. http://www.jstor.org/stable/canajeducrevucan.36.4.394
Comments