Drama Boreale - Åbo Akademi

different structures on the surface actually reinforce a common deep-structure belief
system. In addition, one should add the important classical implication that theory is tied
to one specific symbol system, the verbal/written language. The tradition includes not
least a hierarchical belief of reflection from lower, subjective and intentional thinking to
higher pure, objective philosophy. In other words, in our daily humanistic research
context, the more (verbal) meta-reflection and ‘philosophy’ we make the stronger quality
of the research work. Research students are only too familiar with the game of ‘namedropping’
associated with this custom. This ambition of objective truth basically reflects
an old cultural and religious belief in pre-given truth and knowledge as separated from
human interest, removed from the human ‘cult’, literally speaking. If art then has
become the modern substitute for a pre-modern cultic celebrations and mimetic practice,
many artists evidently may see themselves as guardians of a ‘cultic’ behaviour of our
time, and not gatekeepers of theory. In this indirect way, artists are also influenced by
‘the theory of theories’, preventing artists from becoming theoretically interested,
obstructing the recognition of arts processes as both intuitive-affective, as well as highly
reflective, investigative, analytic and detached.
The ‘theoros’ was once a personal representative sent by Greek leadership to attend
public celebrations, to watch and to distance himself from the cultic events. ‘Theoria’
then became, following Schelling and later Habermas, the exercise of contemplation of
the given cosmos, the Being, and in this way this tradition signifies historically the
demarcation between Being and Time. This demarcation line has become unquestioned
and secured in Western culture by our institutional distinctions between philosophy,
theory and research (Being) and temporal and sensuous behaviour such as play and arts
(Time). This classical belief also forms our scientific deductive system, which is still the
basic paradigm for all researchers including drama researchers. By adopting this
paradigm we also adapt the view that art or aesthetic practice is paradigmatically
different from theorizing and research (science). Actually, art and science reinforce each
other mutually within a common agreement of theory and “other” non-theoretical
knowledge. The value of art, underlined in aesthetic philosophy, is hence founded on a
rationale different from science; by terms and dualisms like presence versus cool
detachment, feeling versus reason and subjective perspective versus objective truth/
theory. This has become a main obstruction to drama education and other humanistic
research and needs to be challenged.
Judith Butler, a late modern feminist researcher, states that theory is not just housed in
universities or in books; theory “is an activity that takes place every time a possibility is
imagined, a collective self-reflection takes place, a dispute over values, priorities, and
language emerges” (Butler 2004 p. 176). Such activities truly take place in the arts and
lead to many art productions. We are hence increasingly faced with a notion of theory
that includes artistic practices. Aslaug Nyrnes (2008) claims, from a rhetorical
perspective, that theory is inscribed in the production of arts, arts production may be a
way of thinking (Nyrnes 2008 p. 22). Often, the production of art means in this context a
production of insight, not of theory. Clearly this distinction depends on an understanding
of theory different from the open position Butler provides. Even if one acknowledges
distinctions between theoretical and sensuous knowledge, one should also acknowledge
arenas for the connection within the same cultural event so to speak. Karl Weick, in his
rather orthodox discussion of the nature of theory, admits this: ‘Perhaps the ultimate
trade-off is the one between process and product, between theorizing and theory,
between doing it and freezing it (Weick 1995 p. 390)
Artists, arts teachers, craftsmen and children have the potential to know within their own
cultural action, within their practices. If we believe that all practices are potentially
reflexive we may say that in all playing, human actions and drama, there is always a
77