No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Theatre History, Methodology and Distinctive Features
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 23 January 2009
Extract
We are living at a time when we are particularly conscious of historical change and of the impermeability of institutions, political, social, intellectual, and educational. The old disciplinary structures that organized our Western educational system for so long seem to have accelerated from the slow and comfortable evolution which gave rise to, for example, the various social sciences and, indeed, our own discipline of theatre studies into a dizzying whirl of new inter and cross relationships that the stunning proliferation of centres, institutes, and special programmes reflects but by no means adequately represents. The world of intellectual discourse, within which theatre studies, historical studies, and for that matter the cognate fields toward which and from which analytical ideas of theatre and performance circulate, has become in the last quarter of a century extremely complex, and seems to offer an almost infinite variety of methodologies vying for critical attention. There are a number of concerns and assumptions that run consistently through a great deal of this varied discourse, however, and one of the most important of these has obviously also contributed significantly our sense of a conceptual world in flux. This is the wide circulation in modernist thought of historical and cultural relativism, the rejection of traditional essentialist beliefs in favour of an attitude that regards most human institutions as culturally generated and thus always changing or changeable through the continuing negotiations of cultural activity.
- Type
- Articles
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © International Federation for Theatre Research 1995
References
Notes
1 Wilshire, Bruce, Role Playing and Identity (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1982), p. 280.Google Scholar
2 Wilshire, Bruce, ‘The Concept of the Paratheatrical,’ The Drama Review 34,4 (Winton 1990), p. 178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3 , Charles and Lamb, Mary, Works (London: 1903), 2: p. 144.Google Scholar
4 John Foxe, Acts and Monuments, 8 v. (London, 1841) VIII, 90.
5 Froude, James A., The Reign of Mary Tudor (London: Dent, 1913).Google Scholar