Dramatic Philosophy: The Group Art of Humanity

Author: Sun Wenhui
Publisher:
Publish Date: 1994-08-01
Features: In the current research field of drama in China, this is a concise dramaturgy with certain. Its arguments are superior to most similar works, and it has made great efforts in collecting and processing relevant academic resources. The thinking is clear, the materials are abundant, and it has a concise academic style. Yu Qiujiu once commented: In the current research field of drama in China, this is a concise dramaturgy with certain. Its arguments are clearly superior to most similar works, and it has made great efforts in collecting and processing relevant academic resources. The thinking is clear, the materials are abundant, and it has a concise academic style. This book may be a good read for drama theorists.
[Preface]
Preface I This small book titled "Philosophy of Drama" should have been given a more appealing name, because on bookstore shelves, both "drama" and "philosophy" are disciplines that are easily neglected. By combining the two, I should have expected double the neglect. But I couldn’t. Because this book indeed talks about the philosophy of drama. The debate has ended, but I have not abandoned in-depth research on this issue. The discussion on the "concept of drama" and the rise of "cultural fever" in academia have given me two basic understandings:
1. Our drama theory is quite lagging. On one hand, we question some basic "conclusions" about drama, such as: Chinese drama originated in the Song Dynasty; drama is a "synthetic art" (if drama is a synthetic art, then, if we "synthesize" contemporary poetry, music, dance, and art, we could reshape a "contemporary drama" to solve the crisis of drama. But the reality is far from being so simple and easy). On the other hand, we deeply feel that existing drama theory cannot answer practical drama questions, such as: what is the essence of the drama crisis? Where is the future of drama? etc. Therefore, to answer the difficulties of drama, we must first achieve a transformation in drama theory.
2. Discussing drama only within the scope of drama cannot solve the problems of drama. As a spiritual and cultural phenomenon of humanity, the occurrence, development, and decline of drama are inevitably closely related to the culture of the times. The changes in the cultural times must dominate the fate of drama. Therefore, thinking about the problems of drama must focus on the culture of the times. Based on these two understandings, I attempt to seek the laws of drama changes by examining the relationship between past drama changes and the culture of the times. I noticed that Chinese drama has created four different systems of drama styles, and the occurrence and change of these four drama systems are closely related to the changes in social culture. I seem to have grasped something. In 1987, I completed a draft of a work titled "Fourth-Generation Drama" and submitted it to the publisher Li Shujiji of Hunan People's Publishing House. Mr. Li Shujiji replied quickly, hoping to find a theorist with extensive research on contemporary drama theory to evaluate the manuscript. I thought of my teacher, Professor Yu Qiujiu, the President of Shanghai Theatre Academy.
II Reading Susanne Langer made me see the light. Susanne believes: art is a form of expression of human emotions. In the inner life of humans, there is a certain real and complex life experience; language cannot truly represent and express this experience; since language cannot fulfill the expression of emotions, human symbolic ability must create another symbolic form, and thus art arises. Susanne Langer recognizes that art is a form of human life, not just an aesthetic form. This is the truth and depth of her theory. From this point alone, our understanding of art-theatre has gained a new perspective. Susanne's theory originates from her teacher Cassirer, so I had to read Cassirer. Ernst Cassirer's profound knowledge is intimidating. Fortunately, I only had his book "Man and His Symbols," "Mythical Thinking," and an introduction to Cassirer. Although knowing Cassirer through this little amount is a bit disrespectful to him, using it to solve drama problems is not without inspiration. Cassirer's research on human cultural activities such as language, mythology, religion, art, and science is not satisfied with focusing on the results of these activities but rather directs his attention to the process of these activities. Through the study of human activities, he found: language, mythology, religion, art, and science are multiple variations of the same main theme; they are not arbitrary creations unrelated to each other, but an organic whole with the same source. Traditional drama theory research is not like this. In the past, we focused on the results of human drama activities—scripts, performances, music, art, and even their stage embodiment and the audience's reactions; we explored the laws of drama from these results; human activities were subordinated to this "result," and artistic creation (a part of human activities) was also restricted by these "laws"; when these "results" no longer met human needs and human activities did not stop, the "laws" also lost their value of cognition and application. Therefore, the true laws of drama should be sought and understood from the process of human activities. The establishment of Cassirer's philosophical thought system benefited from his understanding and grasp of primitive culture. To understand the meaning of the process of human activities (especially artistic activities), we must carefully interpret primitive culture to obtain clear and rapid answers. The origin of art is closely related to primitive culture. But what about drama? Isn’t drama considered the so-called "seventh art," or the art that came later, following poetry, music, painting, sculpture, architecture, and dance? Can it have a relationship with primitive culture? Such seemingly plausible questions often become obstacles to our thinking. That view of drama as a later art is not the conclusion drawn from finding "laws" from "results"! I have two intuitions that drama theory must break through and develop, and the study of drama must point to primitive culture:
1. People explore the origin of drama, from the Song to the Tang, from the Tang to the Han, and from the Han back to the pre-Qin period, with many conflicting opinions and no consensus; yet, in its own development, drama has no clear "starting line" to mark its beginning. The shamans and puppeteers of the pre-Qin period must have their own origins, and this origin must point to the distant primitive era.
2. I realized that there is a certain inherent consistency between art and primitive shamanism. This consistency is not only reflected in the well-known homophonic and synonymous words "shaman" and "dance"; but also in the fact that art, especially drama, can evoke joy, anger, sorrow, and happiness without touching the human body. The function of art in this regard is essentially the same as that of shamanism. And whether this consistency truly exists must be studied through primitive culture. Primitive culture itself is a vast encyclopedia. It seems unrelated to drama, yet every "subject" in it is closely linked to human drama activities. First, anthropology must be explored. James G. Frazer's "Golden Bough" is a must-read; his effective research on shamanism deepened our understanding of primitive art. The numerous shamanistic rituals recorded in the book are actually what we recognize as primitive drama. Levy-Bruhl's "Primitive Thought" benefited me greatly. His discussions on the thinking methods of primitive people and the "collective unconscious" are crucial for understanding the occurrence of art. It was due to Levy-Bruhl that I had to pay attention to Carl G. Jung. Jung, a student of Freud, is very familiar to Chinese culture. Personally, I believe that his influence on art will far exceed that of his teacher. His "theory of archetypes" has become a powerful new critical weapon in literary research. Then, reading Jung's archetype criticism theory by N. Frye, I felt that Frye was guiding us on how to use this new weapon. Of course, the theories of Jung and Frye have long surpassed the field of anthropology. Secondly, it is necessary to understand mythology and mythology. Mythology is called the "history of pre-literate societies." To understand the history of primitive society, mythology can provide some historical facts. Mythology is also the "content" of shamanistic rituals, so it is also an effective way to explore the content of primitive drama. Mythology is also the "ammunition" of archetype criticism—without mastering mythology, one cannot use this weapon. Thirdly, to study primitive culture, one must have a certain understanding of folklore and archaeological knowledge. Being able to understand fossils or "living fossils" greatly helps in grasping primitive culture. In recent years, the rise of Nuo culture research has deepened my understanding of drama culture. Nuo culture combines art, religion, mythology, language, and even science (of course, it is very primitive science, such as driving away plagues in rituals, demonstrating agricultural and fishing techniques, etc.) in one. On it, we can appreciate the state of early social and cultural activities of humans. Nuo culture in China has endured thousands of years of suffering without dying, and it is also closely related to the agricultural civilization that has lasted thousands of years, especially the agricultural production activities of sowing in spring and harvesting in autumn. The mystery of Chinese drama surviving numerous disasters lies in this. Through the understanding of primitive culture, I was surprised to find that only the interpretation of Aristotle in the ancient Greek era was close to the truth regarding many basic propositions of drama; and Aristotle's drama theory has endured to this day.──Why is this? I think, this is because among the many art theorists of ancient and modern times, only he is closest to the source of drama, hence he understands the essence of drama, hence he is closest to the truth of things. Later, people understood Aristotle based on their own experience, unknowingly misunderstanding and distorting his theory. Therefore, to "restore" or "surpass" Aristotle's philosophy of drama theory, we must also stand at the source of drama to rethink it.
III While reading many new works on aesthetics, psychology, anthropology, cultural studies, folklore, sociology, religion, and history, I began to rewrite it. Because I could re-examine traditional and contemporary drama in a broad cultural context, I gained many new insights into drama problems. I realized that what I was exploring was far more than "aesthetic drama" or "dramatic aesthetics," but the real "what is drama" and "what drama is," which belong to the philosophical aspects of drama. The philosophy of drama, since it was established by the ancient Greek thinker Aristotle, was soon summarized by later generations as drama aesthetics. People often equate drama aesthetics with drama philosophy. In fact, drama philosophy includes drama aesthetics, but drama aesthetics is not the whole of drama philosophy. For example, what is drama? What is the essence of drama? What is the tradition of drama? Why and how does the tradition of drama change, etc., belong to the "concept of drama" issues, which far exceed the scope of drama aesthetics. And these are the basic questions of drama theory, which traditional theory has always been vague about; thus, when the drama industry continues to develop, "theory" cannot answer the various questions raised by practice. The root of the problem lies in the poverty of drama philosophy. I am fully aware of my naivety and shallowness; but I greatly admire the sentence E. Hobsbawm said in his book "On Tradition": "Repeating what is already known is not discovery, even the scientist who cannot achieve this is at most a maid, a helper, or a substitute player, at best just a bit part player."