Deconstructing the postdramatic
Questions of mimesis, authorship and representation
in Acts and apparitions
Abstract only
Log-in for full text

You are not authenticated to view the full text of this chapter or article.

manchesterhive requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books or journals - to see content that you/your institution should have access to, please log in through your library system or with your personal username and password.

If you are authenticated and think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.

Non-subscribers can freely search the site, view abstracts/extracts and download selected front and end matter. 

Institutions can purchase access to individual titles; please contact for pricing options.


If you have an access token for this content, you can redeem this via the link below:

Redeem token

This chapter investigates whether postdramatic theatre can claim any real philosophical distinction from the dramatic model which shares the overall theatrical framework, regardless of their differences in aesthetic form. The exclusive alignment of text-driven performance with the dramatic model has undergone significant developments since it was first proposed by Hans-Thies Lehmann in 1999. The chapter examines three of the most common poststructuralist charges levelled at the dramatic model. Firstly, it upholds the origin myth through its mimetic repetition of reality; secondly, it upholds the origin myth through its dependence on a theological playwright; and finally, it offers an illusion of original presence concealing its reliance on repetition and representation. The question of radical poststructuralist potential in relation to the charge of theocratic authorship needs to be differently understood.

Acts and apparitions

Discourses on the real in performance practice and theory, 1990–2010


All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 26 10 0
Full Text Views 11 3 0
PDF Downloads 5 1 0