Foreword

The impulse for this volume on Theatricality stemmed from an observation and a question. The notion of "theatricality" recurs in many different disciplines: theater, anthropology, sociology, psychology, business, economics, politics and psychoanalysis (to name but a few), where the term is used either metaphorically or actually resorted to as an operative concept. However, a closer examination reveals that it is often employed in a widely divergent and contradictory manner. Moreover, when used outside the field of theater, the notion of theatricality seems to refer to familiar characteristics, as if its meaning were somehow implicit for those who use them. To what exactly does this term refer, and to what kind of theater is it related? These are the preliminary questions I have attempted to pose at the outset of this special issue.

In this collection, covering topics ranging from Theater History to Cultural Studies, Feminism, and Cognitive Science, international theater scholars probe the relevance of the concept of theatricality within and beyond the realm of Theater Studies, examining the ways in which the term itself is considered to be misleading, misunderstood, or even obsolete. Their contributions explore the various viewpoints that reflect the evolution of critical thinking on theatricality. Using the analytical tools of their respective fields, researchers often ascribe widely divergent—and at times diametrically opposed—meanings, values and properties to theatricality. I believe this collection reveals what ultimately connects all these approaches—namely, the shared conviction that the beholder is fundamental to the definition of theatricality, since the theatrical phenomenon is acknowledged and rendered operational by the spectator's presence alone. Elizabeth Burns was one of the first to assert this, some 30 years ago.

My primary objective in this collection is to clarify the notion, and to see whether theatricality is still a pertinent concept compared to performativity, which has overshadowed it in the last 15 years. Is "theatricality" still a useful device in today's theoretical field? To find out, I asked each of the contributors the same question: "How would you define the notion of theatricality?" Each has answered on his own theoretical grounds, using Cultural Studies (Joachim Fiebach) or Feminist Studies (Sue-Ellen Case), Cognitive Science (Malgorzata Sugiera) or personal cultural background (Mitsuya Mori, Ragnhild Tronstad). Some have drawn on examples to show how theatricality operates within performance (Silvija Jestrovic, Freddie Rokem, Janelle Reinelt) or via the actor's body (Eli Rozik, Susan Leigh Foster, Virginie Magnat). Others have tried to establish what the basic categories of theatricality would be (Jean-Pierre Sarrazac, Marvin Carlson, Josette Féral); others have drawn on an evolution of the notion within the field, linking the fall of theatricality to the emergence of our postmodernist era (Anne-Britt Gran, Timothy Murray). I have gathered all these visions together in order to clarify the concept of theatricality and to reach a better understanding of what is at stake in using (or renouncing) this concept today. The articles engage in a dialectical dialogue with each other, showing that the notion of theatricality is indeed not only a tricky one but also one that replays the whole history of theater. It is precisely because the notion of theater has changed that we must constantly redefine the notion of theatricality.

On a more personal note, let me explain the changes that have occurred in my own vision since I first mentioned theatricality in 1982, and again in 1988. ¹ The earlier article ("Performance and Theatricality: The Subject Demystified"), often quoted in the US, presented performativity and theatricality in opposing terms, stressing the dynamic aspect of the former, while the latter, I said at the time, inscribed the stage in a signifying semiology, not possible through performativity. The most often quoted sentence in that article stated that "Performance can be seen as an art-form whose primary aim is to undo 'competencies' (which are primarily theatrical). Performance readjusts these competencies and redistributes them in a desystematized arrangement" (179).

This sentence appealed to an American audience, which was very much interested (as I was at the time) in performance...