Drama is perhaps a difficult art form to look at when discussing classism, due to it being such a general term. The theatre can encompass so many different genres and stage performers, including some which show real social strife and difficulties. Social realist dramas, a form innovated by 19th century playwright Henrik Ibsen, for example, made use of naturalist settings and acting styles to show the realities of society and expose the hypocrisies of the bourgeois class. These styles only continued to develop throughout 20th century theatre; John Osbourne in the 1950’s bringing forth the ‘kitchen-sink’ drama, a form which honestly portrayed working-class individuals, especially men who were disillusioned with society. Indeed, even the space of the theatre itself is inclusionary, a place where people regardless of class may occupy and consume the same entertainment and art. There is perhaps a kind of universality to theatre, a human quality which encompasses and encapsulates the individual, regardless of background.
And yet, despite this, the theatre is perhaps seen in societal discourse as being associated with plays which possess higher-cultural capital, and therefore exclusionary to working-classes. The theory was developed by French sociologist, Pierre Bourdieu in the 1970’s working off of Marxist’s ideas that the more capital one has, the more power and influence you may have. In this case, Bourdieu discusses not the monetary power of the middle-classes, but rather an educational imbalance which allows further progression of those with a more typical middle-class education, rather than working-class. This association of theatre with a high-cultural capital then serves to exclude those of a working-class background who may either want to work and occupy the world of the theatre, or even just enjoy watching for entertainment purposes.
Indeed, Catherine Love reflection on John McGrath’s 1979 speech highlights the restrictions that working class audiences may find regarding the theatre. McGrath argues the theatre’s values are “firmly those of acceptability to a metropolitan middle-class audience”, with Love feeling that what he says still rings true in today’s world. One may wonder that, however radical some elements of theatre are, they are somewhat tempered to fit the minds of the middle-class. Therefore, we can see that while theatre has the opportunity to appeal to and represent the masses and society as a whole, social discourse surrounding high-brow culture may damage the potential that is has for inclusivity.
Arguably, the English theatre has not always had this problematic history and when we look back to the medieval period – specifically the time of the mystery plays – one may see their participatory element. While it is difficult to discuss modern class ideas in a historical setting dominated by the feudal system in England, it is notable that the commons played an active role in theatre. With origins in the Catholic tradition, these religious plays were a way for the trade guilds (medieval merchants or craftsmen) to display their produce for their community. Each guild would perform part of these biblical narratives and in doing would perform a part of the narrative which allowed them to show their crafts. Local dialects and vernacular were a large part of these mystery plays, thus appealing to the smaller community, rather than the ruling classes.
The Renaissance, with its shift from more religious to secular drama, also saw the opening of large theatres. It is here perhaps, in places such as Shakespeare’s globe where we begin to see the more separated class divides of theatre; the ‘groundlings’ unable to afford to sit on the three levels of the theatre standing in the area around the stage. Indeed, the noblemen and monarchs would not even go to the space of the theatre, instead holding private plays in the courtly rooms thus preventing any kind of intermingling with the commons. Additionally, the large theatre houses were solely in London with the more localised drama being on a smaller scale, and perhaps here we can begin to see why McGrath may have highlighted the impact of the ‘metropolitan middle-class’, for even now what is thought of as the most culturally significant theatre scene in Britain is the West End.
Yet evidentially there was an opportunity for actors of the renaissance to transcend class barriers, in the way that actors of a lower class were able to play the role of a king or individual with great political power. Actors were allowed to wear the colours or fabrics only worn by kings, perhaps highlighting the ability of theatre to transform. Additionally, while the so-called ‘groundlings’ and nobility may not have been occupying the same place when engaging and consume theatrical entertainment it is notable that they were still interested in the same entertainment despite the vastly different education levels and lives. Theatre clearly has a way to engage and entertain all classes of society, even if is deemed as high-brow entertainment.
Therefore, it is notable that there were and continue to be restrictions in theatre regarding inclusivity as explored by Emily Sanderson, whether regarding the representation of working-class individuals in the workspace of the theatre, or in making an accessible space for audience members. Yet, as many dramatists of the 20th century clearly did, I urge people to see the theatre as something that is at times incredibly inclusive and movable, even if it still has far to go. We can see through history the power and transformative nature of theatre as an art form, one that has the ability to transcend class boundaries. We must refuse to let theatre be solely possessed by a singular group of people, it must and can be claimed as an accessible form for everyone.