{"id":410,"date":"2024-11-06T15:58:58","date_gmt":"2024-11-06T15:58:58","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.critical-stages.org\/30\/?p=410"},"modified":"2024-12-24T16:41:16","modified_gmt":"2024-12-24T16:41:16","slug":"contre-le-theatre-politique-against-political-theatre","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.critical-stages.org\/30\/contre-le-theatre-politique-against-political-theatre\/","title":{"rendered":"Contre le th\u00e9\u00e2tre politique<\/em> (Against Political Theatre)"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

by Olivier Neveux<\/strong>
Paris: La fabrique \u00e9ditions, 314 pp<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Editor\u2019s  Note<\/strong><\/h5>\n\n\n\n

Olivier Neveux is a Professor of Theatre History and Aesthetics at the University of Lyon\u2019s international theatre research centre, ENS. He is also the Editor of the French journal <\/em>Th\u00e9\u00e2tre\/Public. In his 2019 volume — <\/em>Contre le th\u00e9\u00e2tre politique(Against Political Theatre) \u2013 he questioned  the very existence of political theatre as such, a position that has provoked numerous arguments both for and against his thesis.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

From time to time, <\/em>CS Books attempts to underscore ongoing discussions like this by asking theatre scholars to respond to the specific issues raised. In this instance, two Portuguese theatre professors from the University of Lisbon consider first con and then pro Neveux\u2019s arguments. Our hope in publishing this material is to more deeply understand the issues at the center of the ongoing debate as well as to bring such notable books to wider attention in the theatre community.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Anyone (or ideally any two) wishing to offer discussions of other important theatre volumes is asked to contact the CS Books Editor at any time.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Don Rubin<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Position I:  Arguing Impotence (and Language)<\/strong><\/h5>\n\n\n\n

by Jos\u00e9 Maria Vieira Mendes<\/strong>*<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The French philosopher Geoffrey de Lagasnerie has referred to the impasse of political contestation as an experience of \u201cimpotence\u201d. In Sortir de notre impuissance politique<\/em> (2020) he suggests a production of new types of political practice. The diagnosis is not new. Alain Badiou, Jacques Ranci\u00e8re, Chantal Mouffe, Boltanski\/Chiapello, Negri\/Hardt, Slavoj \u017di\u017eek, among many others, have written about the challenges of revolutionary movements in the era of advanced Western capitalism. The field of the arts is no exception to this state of affairs, which some characterize as a post-political era, to which the engaged artist, the one who challenges the autonomy of art by eliminating the boundary between life and art and whose model was built up throughout the 20th century, no longer knows how to respond.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Olivier Neveux, in Contre le th\u00e9\u00e2tre politique<\/em>, a volume whose title can be translated as Against Political Theatre<\/em> demonstrates familiarity with this description of the conundrum, although his focus is on how theatre artists and their performances deal with the particular experience of impotence. A professor of theatre history and aesthetics, Neveux rehearsed part of his arguments in a 2007 book entitled Politiques du Spectateur<\/em>, in which he defines \u201cpolitics\u201d as being inseparable from the notion of emancipation and the transformation of reality.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In Contre le th\u00e9\u00e2tre politique<\/em>, Neveux explains what he means by \u201cpolitical theatre\u201d with the following words (all translations here are my own): \u201cI opted, unlike previous works, for an extensive definition: all theatre that sustains, manifests, interweaves a political care, inclination, project \u2013 and this can be tenuous, flagrant, militant or critical, distant or frontal, in its fables or in its scope\u201d (9).[1]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Contrary to this definition, which might be too broad to be considered a satisfactory one, the book\u2019s orientation is, according to its author, \u201cclear\u201d: \u201cIt is aimed at the countless people who, all over the place, are trying very hard to mobilize theatre against this world\u201d (17).[2]<\/sup><\/a> Political antagonism is, after all, what Neveux calls politics: against<\/em> this world. What he means by theatre is, however, as I’ll try to demonstrate, a more complicated issue since Neveux seems to remain with practices of theatre that he is apparently not willing to question, contrary to Lagasnerie\u2019s strategy to contradict political impotence.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Neveux argues for the existence of a \u201cpolitical theatre,\u201d and one of the book\u2019s aims is to look for it. Where is it? How can political theatre relate to the present? What defines it? His search is divided into three parts. In the first, he tries to describe politics within theatre itself. In the second, he describes the art of political theatre. And in the third, he looks at several specific performances to find in these worlds \u201cpossible alliances between theatre and politics\u201d (21).[3]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The content of this three-part search is not always easy to follow. Often, I simply could not grasp the author\u2019s point despite the questions posed in each of the sections. One therefore reads Neveux with questions that promise clarification, but which he ends up evading or addressing in what might be called a diagonal way, an elusive partiality. The adverb \u201cperhaps\u201d and the conditional mode proliferate (\u201cperhaps it’s necessary\u201d) as do open-ended hypotheses that allow him both to suggest and reject solutions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This frustrating rhetorical strategy often resorts to identifying what is not<\/em> political theatre. Neveux lists a number of threats to \u201cpolitical theatre,\u201d by which he means ways of doing things that, by claiming to be political, undermine the politics of theatre. It is in these inventories that we find Neveux\u2019s most interesting arguments and lucid insights, when he identifies false steps taken by artists and performances that seem to contradict their own intentions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The fact is Neveux finds it difficult to deal with positive assertions, and perhaps this reflects the impotence to which Lagasnerie refers. The following quote illustrates this rhetorical enigma:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It is certainly possible for a spectator to emancipate himself in front of an emancipating spectacle. Or not (164).[4]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The yes and no in the same statement make the author\u2019s own position inconsequential, which, he argues, is justified by the topic itself. Neveux seems to know that \u201cgeneralities\u201d do contradict the \u201cenigmatic character of emancipation and mobilizations\u201d because \u201cthere is no automatism of devices for politics\u201d (194)[5]<\/sup><\/a> and that \u201cPolitical theatre cannot, in all obviousness, constitute a unified genre\u201d (196).[6]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

And even though he considers the need for an immanent relation with theatre contrary to a totalizing transcendental one, he does not shy away from suggesting his inclination towards a certain idea of what theatre actually is.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

We perhaps have the impression, then, of returning to the starting point: All theatre (because it establishes this present) is political. (…) But that\u2019s not all. This present arises through the creation of an \u2018intermediate space\u2019, a \u2018potential space\u2019, framed by the fictitious (271).[7]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

So, for Neveux, there are two characteristics of theatre as a discipline that make it ontologically political: its relationship with the present and the intermediate space it occupies between fiction and reality. Thus he says, going back to the beginning of the book, that it is insufficient, although apparently unavoidable, to consider all theatre political. Faced with a conclusion of this kind, and accepting that it is restricted to theatre and not to other media or even to everything that exists, we are forced to accept a transcendental definition of theatre as a medium, in line with the \u201cmedium-specificity thesis,\u201d which argues, as the American philosopher No\u00ebl Carrol explained in an essay first published in 1985, that \u201ceach art form has its own domain of expression and exploration\u201d (6).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

One criticism that can be levelled at this position is, for example, the one that Carrol himself puts forward: \u201cwhy suppose that the essential characteristics of a medium necessarily have direct consequences for the art made in that medium?\u201d And Neveux, quoting Stuart Hall, who rejects the generalization of form or genre as producing an effect or carrying an intrinsic quality, doesn’t seem to disagree with this position.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In Neveux\u2019s defense, we can use his own words when he brings political theatre closer to impossibility: \u201cWhat if \u2018political theatre\u2019 had to do with this impossible – the resolution of which, however, is imperative?\u201d (204). [8]<\/sup><\/a> It is from impossibility that he arrives at a culinary reduction that brings the theatrical political gesture closer to the \u201csmall\u201d referring to \u201cthe relationship that must be invented between incommensurable dimensions: the universe in the hands of a baker\u201d (229).[9]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The demand for the singularity of theatre (the particular performance) is its politics (which is why Neveux resorts to describing various performances he has seen). But this singularity doesn\u2019t detract from the book\u2019s project, which inevitably hangs over all the assertions it contains and even the performances it talks about: the idea that \u201ctheatre\u201d is a collection of performances with their own generic (and essential) ontology; in other words, a transcendental idea of theatre and art that trusts that the genre or medium surpasses the performances themselves and could live without them. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Which is why Neveux — with the help of modernist thinkers such as Benjamin, Brecht, Breton, Pasolini, Boal, Piscator, Genet or Vitez — only questions the adjective \u201cpolitical\u201d and never the word \u2018theatre.\u201d As if theatre for Genet or Brecht is the same thing as contemporary political theatre.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It must be said, a large part of politics in theatre has been made in recent decades by the rejection of a certain idea of theatre, or even of theatre as a genre, and by expansions have made the word \u201ctheatre\u201d either obsolete or mutable.[10]<\/sup><\/a> If this is the case, how can we talk about political theatre without talking about theatre and new types of theatrical practice?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Probably not by talking about political theatre.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n
Endnotes<\/strong><\/h5>\n\n\n\n

[1]<\/sup><\/a> \u201cTout th\u00e9\u00e2tre qui soutient, manifeste, entretient un souci, une inclination, un projet politique \u2013 cela peut \u00eatre t\u00e9nu ou flagrant, militant ou critique, \u00e0 distance ou frontal, dans ses fables ou ses attendus.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[2]<\/sup><\/a> \u201cIl se destine aux innombrables personnes, qui, ici et l\u00e0, s\u2019\u00e9chinent \u00e0 mobiliser le th\u00e9\u00e2tre contre ce monde.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[3]<\/sup><\/a> \u201c\u2026d\u2019\u00e9ventuelles alliances entre th\u00e9\u00e2tre et politique.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[4]<\/sup><\/a> \u00ab Il est possible, assur\u00e9ment, qu\u2019un spectateur s\u2019\u00e9mancipe devant un spectacle \u00e9mancipateur. Ou pas. \u00bb<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[5]<\/sup><\/a> \u00ab \u2026 le caract\u00e8re \u00e9nigmatique de l\u2019\u00e9mancipation et des mobilisations \u2026 il n\u2019y a pas d\u2019automatisme des dispositifs pour la politique. \u00bb<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[6]<\/sup><\/a> \u00ab Le \u201cth\u00e9\u00e2tre politique\u201d ne saurait, de toute \u00e9vidence, constituer un genre unifi\u00e9. \u00bb<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[7]<\/sup><\/a> \u201cOn a peut-\u00eatre l\u2019impression, alors, d\u2019\u00eatre revenus au commencement: tout th\u00e9\u00e2tre (parce qu\u2019il instaure ce pr\u00e9sent) est politique. (\u2026) Mais ce n\u2019est pas tout. Ce pr\u00e9sent advient par la cr\u00e9ation d\u2019un \u2018espace interm\u00e9diaire\u2019, d\u2019un espace potentiel\u2019, tram\u00e9 de fictif. \u00bb<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[8]<\/sup><\/a> \u00ab Et si le \u2018th\u00e9\u00e2tre politique\u2019 avait trait \u00e0 cet impossible, don\u2019t la r\u00e9solution cependant est tr\u00e8s imp\u00e9rative? \u00bb<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[9]<\/sup><\/a> \u00ab \u2026 le rapport qui doit s\u2019inventer entre des dimensions incommensurables : l\u2019univers dans les mains d\u2019un boulanger. \u00bb<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[10]<\/sup><\/a> Florian Malzacher\u2019s latest book, The Art of Assembly. Political Theatre Today<\/em>, offers a number of examples of political theatre performances that think of theatre as an \u201cart that is self-reflective\u201d without falling \u201cinto the trap of pure self-referentiality\u201d (122).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Bibliography<\/strong><\/h5>\n\n\n\n

Carrol, No\u00ebl. \u201cThe Specificity of Media in the Arts.\u201d The Journal of Aesthetic Education<\/em>, vol. 19, no 4. U of Illinois P, 1985, pp. 5-20.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Lagasnerie, Geoffrey de. Sortir de notre impuissance politique. <\/em>Fayard, 2020.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Malzacher, Florian. The Art of Assembly. Political Theatre Today<\/em>. Alexander Verlag, 2023. <\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

*<\/a>Jos\u00e9 Maria Vieira Mendes<\/strong> is an Assistant Professor and researcher in the Centre for Theatre Studies at the School of Arts and Humanities at the University of Lisbon. Director of the Post-graduate course Theatre and Performance Studies, he has published three volumes of his plays, a fictional diary, and an essay, One Thing Is Not the Other. On Theatre and Literature<\/em> (2016; 2nd<\/sup> revised edition 2022).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n
Position II :  Arguing Essence (and Irony)<\/strong><\/h5>\n\n\n\n

by Rui Pina Coelho<\/strong>**<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

–Le th\u00e9\u00e2tre cr\u00e9e, parmi d\u2019autres, dans l\u2019\u00e9touffement du pr\u00e9sent, une br\u00e8che.<\/em>
(Olivier Neveux 270)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I don’t think there is a more important discussion in the performing arts today than the one Olivier Neveux calls for in Contre le Th\u00e9\u00e2tre Politique<\/em>. Indeed, the debate on the role of the performing arts and their alliance with politics (or, in other words, with life, the world, the present) has long been at the centre of many debates in theatre and performance studies.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

As examples, I would briefly mention The Routledge Companion to Theatre and Politics<\/em>, edited by Peter Eckersall and Helena Grehan (2019) where going beyond<\/em> the traditional formats of political theatre-making, new ways of \u201cbeing political today\u201d in theatre are rehearsed; or, more recently, The Art of Assembly: Political Theatre Today<\/em> (2023) where Florian Malzacher expands his reflection on pragmatic utopias and radical imagination, in the wake of the ideas of Chantal Mouffe. These are just two examples of this lively (and necessary) ongoing conversation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Neveux has certainly made himself part of this debate. The title of the volume — Contre le Th\u00e9\u00e2tre Politique<\/em> \u2013 is itself ironic. It’s not a work against political theatre, but a work about theatre and politics, expanding on the reflection begun in his Politiques du spectateur: Les enjeux du th\u00e9\u00e2tre politique aujourd’hui<\/em> (2013) which theorised that the political in theatre is the performance’s own conception of who the spectators are and the relationship it seeks to establish with them.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Declaring itself an \u201cintervention text,\u201d  Contre le Th\u00e9\u00e2tre Politique<\/em> is divided into three parts: \u201cCultural Unpolitics;\u201d \u201cToo much realism;\u201d and \u201cThe Art of Theatre\u201d (all translations here are my own).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The first part deals specifically with the current offensive against the whole notion of theatre and politics. The second is an interrogation of the forms that contemporary political theatre \u2013 specifically works of opposition \u2013 take. Part three looks at the range of possible alliances between theatre and politics. Taken together, they form what I believe is a new form of resistance rather than simply being an intervention.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

As I see it, the first part is positively<\/em> melancholic, but a left-wing melancholy if you will. Taking French cultural policy in recent decades as a paradigm, Neveux describes how the state has turned political theatre into a prop, emptying it of meaning, echoing Baudrillard’s prediction: \u201cwhen everything is political, nothing is political anymore, everything is insignificant\u201d (in \u201cAfter the orgy\u201d).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The second part has a much more dialectical slant, the term used here in the best Marxist sense. Neveux exposes and comments on a vast kaleidoscope of performances that somehow claim to be \u201cpolitical.\u201d There are many. From the extraordinary \u00c7a ira (1): Fin de Louis<\/em>, by Joel Pommerat, to La Reprise<\/em>, by Milo Rau, to performances by the South African Brett Bailey, Bernard Sobel, Olivier Py, Jacques Delcuvellerie, Mohamed el Khatib. Many.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In this exercise, he discusses the frictions and impasses that the traditional formats of \u201cpolitical theatre\u201d experience in the contemporary world. He speaks of the unpolished edges of militant theatre, agit-prop theatre; proletarian, popular, realistic, epic, oppressed and documentary theatre; street theatre and participatory performances; theatre concerned with current affairs and theatre that simplifies <\/em>philosophical discussions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It is in the last part that Neveux reveals the argument\u2019s ontology, its utopian socialist bent.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

If in the first two parts we see the shadows of Piscator, Brecht, Weiss and Vitez \u2013 all undoubtedly political artists \u2013 it is in the last part that his critical apparatus comes from elsewhere: Benjamin, Adorno, Marcuse and, above all, Ernst Bloch, the German Marxist and utopian. And here the discussion clearly changes focus. No longer discussing which approach is more revolutionary or whether form or content is more important, the discussion turns to poetry, imagination and utopia.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

For me, the final chapter is a whole litany of theatre, arguing in favour of the form\u2019s ability to interrogate the collective imagination and to rehearse new ways of living together. In short, it is a new opportunity to think of alternative alliances between theatre and politics, theatre and life, theatre and the present.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

For Neveux, \u201cutopia makes…the present its strategic place.\u201d But, he adds, “the present of politics and the present of art are different. The present of politics is that of opportunity ….The present [of theatre] is neither direct nor immediate” (262).[11]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

In other words, in the inevitable friction between theatre and politics, there is an \u201cintermediate zone\u201d (in other places it will be described as \u201climinal\u201d), a zone that escapes the established order and that \u201c[i]n the suffocation of the present…. creates…a breach\u201d (270).[12]<\/sup><\/a> It’s a time that launches the infinite play of life’s possibilities, of multiple paths, of other ways, of diverse thinking.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This is what the alliance between theatre and politics could be: giving life, through the play of specific intelligences, to a present that is incomparable to the rhythm established by domination. Its quality is greatly dependent on the place it outlines for its spectators, on the experience available to them (273).[13]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

In the end, the author’s argument brings the work back to its starting point:\u201d\u2018all theatre (because it establishes this present) is political\u201d (270)[14]<\/sup><\/a> or can be political or, I might add, should be political. Should be “a secret sign, secret passages: in periods of bad weather, perhaps we  need to rediscover the attractions of conjuration and conspiracy. It would thus be possible, like a strategist, to go to the theatre to observe the furtive appearance of the passages and galleries where, whatever one may say, the mole continues his work” (275).[15]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

I think here of the old mole Pelagea Vlassova in Brecht’s The Mother <\/em>who continues her work underground then suddenly appears. This is also the old mole that is a metaphor for the ongoing revolution itself, of whom Marx in The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte<\/em> (here paraphrasing Hamlet) says: \u201cWell burrowed, old mole.\u201d That is, the old mole we can still call (political) theatre continues to work.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n
Endnotes<\/strong><\/h5>\n\n\n\n

[11]<\/sup><\/a> \u00ab L\u2019utopie fait d\u00e8s lors du pr\u00e9sent son site strat\u00e9gique, elle n\u2019est pas ce qui permet d\u2019enjamber les temps ou l\u2019incons\u00e9quente projection sur les avenirs enjoliv\u00e9s. Toutefois, le pr\u00e9sent de la politique est celui du repli ou de l\u2019opportunit\u00e9, entre \u2018d\u00e9j\u00e0 plus\u2019 et \u2018pas encore\u2019, celui du repli ou de l\u2019offensive, d\u2019une vie alternative qui se d\u00e9ploie sans attendre, d\u2019hypoth\u00e9tiques grands soirs \u00e0 venir, des r\u00e9unions et des t\u00e2ches, etc. \u00bb<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[12]<\/sup><\/a> \u00ab Le th\u00e9\u00e2tre cr\u00e9e, parmi d\u2019autres, dans l\u2019\u00e9touffement du pr\u00e9sent, une br\u00e8che. \u00bb<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[13]<\/sup><\/a> \u00ab L\u2019alliance du th\u00e9\u00e2tre et de la politique pourrait \u00eatre cela : faire vivre au gr\u00e9 d\u2019un jeu d\u2019intelligences sp\u00e9cifiques un pr\u00e9sent incomparable \u00e0 celui que rythme la domination. Sa qualit\u00e9 est grandement tributaire de la place qu\u2019elle dessine \u00e0 son spectateur, de l\u2019exp\u00e9rience qu\u2019elle dispose.\u00bb<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[14]<\/sup><\/a> \u00ab Tout th\u00e9\u00e2tre (parce qu\u2019il instaure ce pr\u00e9sent) est politique. \u00bb<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[15]<\/sup><\/a> \u00ab Un signal secret, des passages secrets : par p\u00e9riode de gros temps, il faut peut-\u00eatre retrouver les attraits de la conjuration et de la conspiration. Il serait possible, ainsi, strat\u00e8ge, d\u2019aller au th\u00e9\u00e2tre guetter l\u2019apparition furtive des passages et des galeries d\u2019o\u00f9 la taupe poursuit, quoi qu\u2019il s\u2019en dise, son travail. \u00bb<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Bibliography<\/strong><\/h5>\n\n\n\n

Baudrillard, Jean. La transparence du mal : Essai sur les ph\u00e9nom\u00e8nes extr\u00eames<\/em>. \u00c9ditions Galil\u00e9e, 1990.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Eckersall, Peter & Helena Grehan, eds. The Routledge Companion to Theatre and Politics<\/em>. Routledge, 2019.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Malzacher, Florian. The Art of Assembly. Political Theatre Today<\/em>. Alexander Verlag, 2023.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Marx, Karl. The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte<\/em> [1952], 1999. Accessed here<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Traverso, Enzo. Left-Wing Melancholia: Marxism, History, and Memory<\/em>. Columbia UP, 2016. <\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

**<\/a>Rui Pina Coelho <\/strong>is Assistant Professor and Head of the Centre for Theatre Studies at the School of Arts and Humanities, University of Lisbon and has, since 2010, worked with Teatro Experimental do Porto (TEP) as a playwright and dramaturg. He is the author of numerous titles including A hora do crime: A viol\u00eancia na dramaturgia brit\u00e2nica do p\u00f3s-Segunda Guerra Mundial (1951\u20131967)<\/em> published by Peter Lang in 2016 and coordinator of the volume Contemporary Portuguese Theatre: Experimentalism, Politics and Utopia <\/em>published by TNDMII\/Bicho do Mato in 2017.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Copyright \u00a9<\/strong> 2024 Jos\u00e9 Maria Vieira Mendes and Rui Pina Coelho
Critical Stages\/Sc\u00e8nes critiques<\/em>, #30, Dec. 2024
e-ISSN: 2409-7411<\/p>\n\n\n

\n
\"Creative<\/a><\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

This work is licensed under the
Creative Commons Attribution International License CC BY-NC-ND 4.0.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":411,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"advanced_seo_description":"","jetpack_seo_html_title":"","jetpack_seo_noindex":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[2],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-410","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-book-reviews"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.critical-stages.org\/30\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/31\/2024\/11\/image1-2.jpeg","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.critical-stages.org\/30\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/410","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.critical-stages.org\/30\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.critical-stages.org\/30\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.critical-stages.org\/30\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.critical-stages.org\/30\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=410"}],"version-history":[{"count":7,"href":"https:\/\/www.critical-stages.org\/30\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/410\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":973,"href":"https:\/\/www.critical-stages.org\/30\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/410\/revisions\/973"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.critical-stages.org\/30\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/411"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.critical-stages.org\/30\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=410"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.critical-stages.org\/30\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=410"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.critical-stages.org\/30\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=410"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}