The “Business” of Violence in Yasmina Reza’s God of Carnage

In Critique of Violence: Between Poststructuralism and Critical Theory Beatrice Hanssen claims that “violence now includes such phenomenologically elusive categories as psychological, symbolic, structural, epistemic, hermeneutical, and aesthetic violence” (8). This translates in two opposite approaches: either we detect violence where it is not, or conversely, violence is everywhere. In this latter approach, violence is an all-embracing concept, and defines almost every human act. It thus loses its specificity and efficacy in elucidating human behaviours, and consequently the multifarious representations of violence in literature serve no purpose.

If we turn to French literature this conundrum is all the more troubling, since violence is the “most significant [theme] characterizing modern French literature” of the last one hundred years, according to influential American critic Wallace Fowlie (Fowlie, vii). Florence Fix, editor of a collection of essays on violence in drama, further writes: “Illogique et inintelligible, la violence est ce qui résiste à l’analyse et à la distance critique car elle se veut une fin en soi” (Fix 22). If an inflated concept of violence combines with the impossibility of understanding it, then interpretation is stopped in its track. This would be an unacceptable end to interpretation.

Yasmina Reza’s play tackles this very paradox. By representing the many ways violence manifests itself in our so-called civilized society, God of Carnage¹ seeks to investigate the root cause of violence and whether society is able to control our innate violence. The play however debunks its own grand theories by ridiculing their proponents as well as their opponents in such a way that there are no winners nor losers in the play’s manifold conflicts. God of Carnage accomplishes what Roland Barthes called a “théâtre du malaise” with “les cris, les gestes, les bruits et les actes, dont le mélange doit produire sur la scène un carnage général” (Barthes 98). This might explain the appeal of the play, and why in its 2009 West End production God of Carnage was awarded an Olivier Award for best new comedy (Reza’s second Olivier Award, the only playwright to ever receive the Award twice), and in its Broadway staging earned stage director Matthew Warchus a Tony Award for best play and best direction.

Whatever the directors’ interpretation there is no denying that violent conflicts pervade the play. As one character says “violence: that’s our business” (15).² We propose to explore all the facets of the ‘business’ of violence: can guilt for committing acts of violence be mitigated; is violence never justified; is it legitimate to respond to violence with violence, be it physical violence or symbolic violence; and lastly, if legitimate, what is the amount of violence appropriate when responding to violence? These issues are the staple plots of most tragedies, but rarely do comedies tackle such grim material. Turning the malaise into a farce God of Carnage contains a whole gamut of comical devices. The main thrust of this article though is a thorough examination of the serious issues connected to violence touched upon by the comedy.

The play’s raison d’être is a fight between two 11 year-old boys in which one child has had two teeth broken. The boys’ parents decide to meet at the victim’s home, and settle the matter in a civilized way. Soon however tempers flare, art books, handbags, flowers and cell phones are destroyed, someone hits someone else, people get drunk, verbal violence becomes rife, someone is even accused of murder . . .

And yet, ostensibly, nothing much is at stake—the insurance will cover the cost of fixing Henry’s broken teeth. It’s just a matter of writing the insurance report. This seems a simple case of one boy hitting the other with a stick at a playground. In such situations parents have to punish, or at the very least give a good talking to, the guilty party and get him to apologise to the victim. Keenly aware of their duty to promote nonviolence and the common good, the four characters however experience a tension between protecting their family’s interest...