Ana içeriğe atla

Posthumanism, Postmodernism, Postfeminism and Shaffer’s and Pinter’s Techniques in Drama

 

 

Posthumanism

Posthumanism approaches people with heavy skepticism and attempts to renavigate and redefine people’s place in modern society which is altered and shaped according to technological advancements. Simply put, posthumanism tries to reconceive humans. Ferrendo argues that “In order to conceive a posthumanist approach, it is first necessary to reflect on the meaning of the notion of the human, both by investigating on the technologies of the self historically developed by the human “others”(p.4). Ferrendo’s contemplation on posthumanism and humanism exhibits that posthumanism is an attempt to unveil the possibility of an idea beyond humanism. This however does not necessarily debunk humanism; it opens a new window to analyze and peruse the sociological and psychological place of human consciousness in modern society. 

Posthumanism is heavily influenced by technological and political advances in recent years. As people become more civilized, they start to adopt the strict structure of society. To be more precise we as people have become to be more inclined to follow the rules and norms society has imposed on us. People’s inclination to follow the rules according to posthumanism is a demonstration of what we are lacking free-will. Also, considering the overwhelming amount of stimuli in a modern city, it becomes quite hard to assume that individuals have control over their environment. Ultimately, posthumanism deals with questions regarding almost everything that we relate to humanism. To be precise Ferrendo states that “The posthuman destabilizes the limits and symbolic borders posed by the notion of the human. Dualisms such as human/animal, human/machine, and, more in general, human/nonhuman are re-investigated through a perception that does not work on oppositional schemata. In the same way, the posthuman deconstructs the clear division between life/death, organic/synthetic, and natural/artificial” (p.5). Ferrendo’s explanation of what posthumanism deals with, suggests that posthumanism is a theory to rediscover humanity with a new and sophisticated perception. The enlightenment and industrial revolution have had an immense effect on people’s consciousness and how we behave. These timestamps also allowed people to analyze society in different ways which then allowed posthumanism to arise.

 

      In theatre, posthumanism allows the audience to adopt a posthuman perspective whilst analyzing the plays. Holloway argues that “The posthuman theoretical perspective is that technology is transforming the human into the posthuman – a being ontologically indiscrete and hybrid: a human-technology cyborg” (p.139) Holloway’s stance on posthumanism in theatre suggests that post humanistic approach to theatre allows the audience and the actors to peruse how people interact with the world. Ultimately, such an approach can redefine humans through theater. According to Hayley

 

      “the posthuman view configures human being so that it can be seamlessly articulated with intelligent machines. In the posthuman, there are no essential differences or absolute demarcations between bodily existence and computer simulation, cybernetic mechanism and biological organism, robot teleology, and human goals” (p.139).

 

      Holloway’s observation on posthuman explains that the posthuman view implies that we as people are not different than highly sophisticated machines. Theatre, therefore, sheds a light on this point and tries to redefine and rediscover humanity through freeing it from the arbitrary rules of society. Simply put, it deals with themes such as death, time, life, free will.

 

Postmodernism

  Postmodernism questions the modernism movement that arose with industrialization and urbanization, Modernism tried to understand how to react to such drastic changes. The changes were so drastic that the sociological structures couldn’t keep up with the technological and industrial advancements of the time. As a result, modernism took place and attempted to answer questions regarding life. Postmodernism, however, debunks the answers modernism found. To put it another way, it deals with themes of time, death, life, love, drama differently than modernism which tries to find a rule or system behind everything. Postmodernism does not need rules. To be precise Connor argues that “Postmodernist work in the theatre has come to mean work that no longer conforms to assumed definitions of what should happen in a poem or a play” (p.66). Connor’s statement unveils that postmodern literary work is hard to put into frames as postmodernism’s nature is to be free from rules. Ultimately, however, a postmodernist drama may present the individual’s identity, death, and life differently which then can disrupt the nation of time of the people creating a surreal impact on the audience who then can be interactive with the play.  

 

 

Postfeminism

      Postfeminism stands as a middle ground for anti-feminism and feminism. It mostly deals with how modern culture objectifies women's bodies and how feminism does wrong by trying to empower women through their appearance. Gill states that “it appears that femininity is defined as a bodily property rather than a social, structural or psychological one” (p.149). Gill’s observation indicates one of the points postfeminism stands against. 

 

      Furthermore, postfeminism is against sexualizing the image of women. Postfemisinm asserts that sexualizing the image of women causes women to appear as passive. Postfeminism tries to modernize such a conventional understanding of women and therefore allows women to express their sexual desires. In drama, therefore, postfeminism allows women to not be mute anymore. Gill states that “this shift is crucial to understanding the postfeminist sensibility. It represents a modernization of femininity… “ (p.151)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Shaffer’s and Pinter’s Techniques in Drama

   Harold Pinter and Peter Shaffer are one of the most prominent writers who are influenced by postmodernism. They are notorious for how they depict settings and how they utilize characters, body language to convey messages. More importantly, they are mostly known for their controversial understanding of drama. Shaffer and Pinter use theatre to convey messages, however, their techniques are utterly different from traditional theatre techniques. To be precise, they use body language, stage, themes, time, and storytelling in a way that allows them to break the chains of traditional theatre. Caretaker and Amasedues are one of the prominent plays in which we can observe their techniques. In this essay, I shall analyze Pinter’s and Shaffer’s use of theories, ideologies, and strategies and argue that these theories distinguish them from other playwrights.

 

     In Caretaker some body gestures convey a message or an indication about the character. To put it another way, Pinter uses body language to reinforce the power of communication. To be precise, the use of body language adds a new spectrum to communication. Raby argues that “Body language contributed extensively to shape further implications to what was spoken “ (p.127) Raby’s contemplation on body language unveils that Pinter uses it to draw the audience’s attention to character and what the character symbolizes Raby continues on body language and suggests that “Aston’s seemed bony and contorted and they were continually held in positions that drew attention to their angularities, especially an odd placing of them on the knees, which intimated much about the character’s past in a mental institution before he chose to reveal such facts in confidence to Davies” (p.127) Here we see how small motions can imply coherent and significant messages. Ultimately, we see that Pinter uses body language so distinctively that it stands out and transforms into a sort of communication.

 

     Shaffer draws the audience into the play through his very compulsive narrative. Shaffer creates suspense with his unique depiction of humanism and his “presentation of complex conflicts”(p.2)To put it another way, Shaffer alters the image of humans and hence puts forward a controversial idea of humans which then creates suspense. Kavanagh argues that “Shaffer is an undisputed master of 'telling tales', forcing the audience into involvement with his dramas through detective-story suspense, human identification, and the presentation of complex conflicts” (p.2). In Kavanagh’s explanation, we see that Shaffer is notorious for his narration which then explains how he produces such a dramatic and theatrical experience in his plays. More importantly, Kavanagh argues that “he intends(and achieves) a balance between mental attentiveness and emotional engagement, this giving rise to a dramatic and theatrical experience which is wider than either Artaud or Brecht envisaged” (p.28) Kavanagh’s statement unveils that Shaffer puts importance on human consciousness and because he emphasizes “mental attentiveness and emotional engagement”. the characters in the play are very important as they draw attention to human consciousness.

 

     In conclusion, Shaffer and Pinter use unique techniques to draw the readers' attention. Shaffer draws the reader into the story and forces the audience to become involved with his storytelling. Pinter, on the other hand, displays human consciousness and language through his use of body language. 

 

CONNOR, S. (ed.) (2004): The Cambridge Companion to Postmodernism,

FERRANDO, F. (2020). PHILOSOPHICAL POSTHUMANISM. BLOOMSBURY ACADEMIC.

MacMurraugh-Kavanagh, M. K. (2001). Peter Shaffer: Theatre and drama. Basingstoke: Palgrave.

Raby, P. (2009). The Cambridge companion to Harold Pinter. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Lepage, L. (2008) ‘Posthuman Perspectives and Postdramatic Theatre: The Theory and Practice of Hybrid Ontology in Katie Mitchell’s The Waves’, Culture, Language and Representation VI, pp. 137–49.

Gill, Rosalind (2007) ‘Postfeminist Media Culture: Elements of a Sensibility’. European Journal of Cultural Studies, 10(2): 147–166.

 

 

 

Yorumlar

Bu blogdaki popüler yayınlar

Rhetoric in Hobbes' Leviathan

  Hobbes’ Word Play Hobbes argues in favor of a monarch or an oligarch. To be more precise, he is in favor of the idea that multiplicity comes with complexity, harming the integrity of the state. In his opinion, men are mostly power-driven, greedy beings who must surrender themselves to a sovereign power that can spread the terror of punishment. According to Hobbes, this fear of punishment is the only effective motivating force that can keep people from brutally murdering each other. While this Hobbesian idea of the state portrays the sovereign’s subjects almost as though they are slaves, this essay will argue that Hobbes is not fundamentally against liberty and allows it within the constraints of laws. Hobbes's description of liberty suggests that only external impediments are against freedom. He states that liberty is “the absence of external impediments” (189) and, although these impediments may take away man’s power to do what he would, they do not prevent men from using th...

Rousseau on Legitimacy of State

Hobbes'dan sonra Rousseau okumayı Proust'tan sonra Daphnes ve Chloe okumaya benzetiyorum. Proust aşkı öyle yapay, çıkarcı ve öyle çirkin yansıtıyor ki, ondan sonra okuduğun her romana ister istemez Proust'un realist bakış açısından bakıyorsun. Belki de realizm sevdamı bırakmalıyımdır. Hobbes'un determinist bakış açısı da birçok argümanını epey ikna edici kılıyor. Bazen bu bakış açısından kaçmak istiyor insan. Hobbes kimmiş lan, ben ölümlü tanrıya irademi falan teslim edemem, gayet özgürüm demek istiyor. Yine de gel gör ki Hobbes haklı. Nasıl, Kant ödev ahlakında nasıl ki herkes davranışlarının topluma yansıdığını varsayarak hareket etmeli diyorsa, Hobbes da yapılmak istemediğini yapma diyor. Buna karşı çıkmak da biraz zor. Rousseau abi Social Contract'ında denese de Emile kitabındaki ikna ediciliğini devam ettiremiyor gibi hissediyorum. Birazdan okuyacak olduğun yazıda da oldukça soyut fikirler göreceksin ve yer yer kendine e ama niye diye soracaksın. Bil ki ben de ...

Hobbes’ Paradox

Hobbes’ Paradox Resolved According to Hobbes, people are born with passions that ultimately lead them into a never-ending war. They require artificial power to stop killing each other. Unless such a power is erected, Hobbes suggests, leaving the state of nature is impossible since people are not inclined to cooperate and trust each other. The core reason why it is impossible to leave the state of nature is because of the innate passions people have that drive them to be constantly in conflict. Hobbes states that in the condition of nature, “any reasonable suspicion” renders any covenant or promise invalid since “bonds of words are too weak to bridle men’s ambition, avarice, anger, and other passions…” (196). Here, Hobbes highlights the importance of punishments, suggesting that without the motivating fear of punishments, covenants are practically invalid. It is also important to understand what Hobbes means by the condition of nature. He argues that because men are born equal, they...