structure them and direct their attention towards certain kinds of action.
But a play text itself doesn’t do that. Similarly, there may be features of
play texts that are not inherently or intentionally political, but that can
be brought out as such in a particular performance or that can be inter-
preted in such a way by an audience. Thus, for example, the text of
Churchill’sSeven Jewish Childrenrelates to recent political events directly
in virtue of its words–an Israeli adult speaking of her happiness when
confronted by pictures of dead Palestinian children. But each performance
asks audience members whether they would like to contribute money to
Medical Aid for Palestinians–something that the play text itself doesn’t
directly ask of the reader. A performance of Seven Jewish Children is
therefore also a fundraising event for a particular organisation as well as
an attempt to bring people together to think about a particular issue from
a particular point of view. We’ll begin with politics and play texts, before
moving on to politics and performances.
Political features, themes or interventions in play texts are widespread
and well documented. Some take the form of specific protests or inter-
ventions in the narrow world of politics; others explore certain theoretical
themes and conflicts; others, needless to say, merge both. In much
modern discussion of ‘political theatre’, the phrase is regularly used
almost as a term of abuse. Often, the notion of‘political theatre’is taken
to be an unwanted or unwelcome intrusion on the part of playwrights
and directors into politics in the narrow sphere – unwelcome either
because playwrights are considered ill qualified or because political plays
are considered somehow inferior. One cause of hostility to political theatre
is the fact that, at least in the English-speaking world,‘political theatre’
is code for‘left-wing political theatre’; thus, an objection to theatre that
mixes in politics can often amount to an objection to left-wing views,
appearing in a theatrical guise. Of course, there is no reason why a play
that is overtly political should be left wing; but in as much as this is the
complaint that lies behind objections to political theatre, it is more a
matter of politics than of theatre.
A different but equally common argument against theatre mixing with
politics (in the narrow sense) is an aesthetic claim about art and its pur-
pose. The idea is that art should have something eternal about it; it
shouldn’t be put to use for a particular narrow purpose. By meddling in
current affairs–in issues that will fade from the public consciousness in a
matter of years– the playwright ensures that a play won’t have any
longevity, thus won’t be any good by the standards of posterity. This is a
common enough criticism that we should take some time to consider
some objections to it. First, as a descriptive claim about theatre and what
it is and isn’t for, this is misleading. There is nothing odd or peculiar
per se about theatre being used instrumentally. Theatre theorists use the
Collective action 165