Propaganda and Art: Dramatic Theory and the American Depression

PROPAGANDA AND ART: DRAMATIC THEORY AND THE AMERICAN DEPRESSION READING THE GROWING NUMBER OF BOOKS and articles on the "social drama" of the American Depression, I am forced to conclude that we do not yet know what we are talking about.! There seem to be two ambivalences which cause the student of Depression drama to spin on his heel, like Dorothy trying to get from the magical land of Oz back to the relatively familiar territory of Kansas. In the first place, there is no clear consensus about what social drama is, or about which plays are examples of it. Probably as a consequence of this ambivalence , we remain confused in our attitude towards whatever plays we think are social dramas. We are not sure whether they are good or bad, nor are we sure whether they represent a passing fancy of the period or a more stable (if less often recognized) type of drama common to several periods. Nevertheless we continue to talk about them because, as Professor Mendelsohn has said so well, "a nagging feeling remains that the protest plays provided the most exciting . . . theater of the period between the wars."2 However, our confusion towards the social drama of the 'thirties is not unusual, nor is my attitude towards it cavalier. The playwrights and critics responsible for the creation of these plays were every bit as confused about them as we are. They were unsure of what they were creating, and they were unsure of the proper attitude to take towards it. It is not surprising that the people involved in creating this drama should be confused about what they were doing. They were not engaged in the deliberate, conscious realization of some aesthetic principle; they were reacting instinctively through the medium of the drama to a serious social crisis. Eventually, though, there grew out of the initial confusion and polemic an attempt to formulate a theory of drama that would account for what they had done. While this attempt did not achieve fruition, it remains important. ! For example, see Morgan Y. Himelstein, Drama Was A Weapon (New Brunswick , New Jersey, 1963); Caspar H. Nannes, Politics in the American Drama (Washington, D. C., 1960); and Gerald Rabkin, Drama and Commitment: Politics in the American Theatre of the Thirties (Bloomington, Indiana, 1964). 2 Michael J. Mendelsohn, "The Social Critics on Stage," Modern Drama, VI (December, 1963), 277. 73 74 MODERN DRAMA May Its incompleteness was not a result of philosophical misconception or of logical contradiction, but of historical accident. At first the development of a theory was impaired because those people most interested in it, and most qualified to develop it, were constantly preoccupied with the practical necessity of play production; and later the development of this theory was cut short by the advent of World War 11.3 Fragmentary though it is, the theory of social drama developed in the American theater between 1930 and 1940 is the most complete one available. Since then certain critics have provided useful hints which may be applied to the creation of a more comprehensive theory; and until the time of such application there will never be a complete understanding of the distinctive dramatic art of the 'thirties. It is with the hope of initiating such a process that this paper attempts to describe as much of a dramatic theory for the social drama of the Depression as does exist. As the twilight of 1929 deepened into the long night of 1932 a growing number of theater people in America began to reorient themselves and demand that their art accommodate' the new social conditions. Social change (if not revolution) became mandatory, and they began to try to use the theater as a weapon "which ... could best express the class struggle and make the greatest appeal to the masses."4 While united on the ultimate goal of theater, opinion among these artists was divided sharply on the best means for attaining it. Certain radicals called for the absolute rejection of the bourgeois theater. Their reasoning was both economic and ideological. No workers' theatre has much chance of success if it tries to imitate the bourgeoise theatre.... The workers are not prepared, financially...