GONÇALVES, Jean Carlos. Teatro e universidade: Cena. Pedagogia. [Dialogismo] [Theater and University: Scene. Pedagogy. [Dialogism]]. São Paulo: Hucitec, 2019, 172p

GONÇALVES, Jean Carlos. Teatro e universidade: Cena. Pedagogia. [Dialogismo]São Paulo: Hucitec, 2019. 172p.

The volume Teatro e universidade: Cena. Pedagogia. [Dialogismo] [Theater and University: Scene. Pedagogy. [Dialogism]] is part of the series Teatro, Série Pedagogia do Teatro [Theater, Theater Pedagogy Series], by Hucitec Publishing House and fosters an inquisitive approach that articulates different knowledge areas: education, theater, and language studies. Through the articulation of concepts from the theoretical-philosophical formulations on language of Bakhtin and the Circle, the volume highlights the encounter and the dialogue of these areas with the voices from theater that echo in education and the voices from education that echo in theater.

The author, Jean Carlos Gonçalves, is a playwright, a theater director and a professor of Theater Practices at the Federal University of Paraná [Universidade Federal do Paraná - UFPR]. He has been developing a significant path of reflection on language based on Bakhtinian premises. The book, as the author himself reveals, was conceived from previous research: his doctoral dissertation, presented to the Graduate Program in Education [Programa de Pós-Graduação em Educação] at UFPR, and reviews he did during his two postdoctoral mentorships at the Graduate Program in Applied Linguistics and Language Studies at the Pontifical University of São Paulo - LAEL/PUC-SP [Programa de Estudos Pós-Graduados em Linguística Aplicada e Estudos da Linguagem da Pontifícia Universidade Católica de São Paulo (LAEL/PUC-SP)]. This new volume, Teatro e universidade: Cena. Pedagogia. [Dialogismo] [Theater and University: Scene. Pedagogy. [Dialogism]], confirms Gonçalves’ path of reflections which presupposes dialogism and does not intend to categorize, nor to stifle concepts; on the contrary, the researcher seeks approximations and points to new lines of discussion.

The book is presented by Beth Brait, supervisor of Jean Gonçalves’ both post-doctoral mentorships. She distinguishes the volume as a remarkable contribution to the Dialogical Analysis of Discourse (ADD) and as “a likely staging of the reference text, thus being unique and unrepeatable” (BRAIT, 2019, p.12; emphasis in original).¹ The reference text means a “living moving universe that does not stop expanding and demands from those who come near it (or who are attracted to it) plenty of study, dedication, technique, method, discipline and, most of all, an exceptional ability of creative interpretation” (BRAIT, 2019, p.11).² Gonçalves is the protagonist of such creative interpretation as he introduces his research, which opens itself to the interdisciplinary view of knowledge by mobilizing voices from theater and education dialogically.

Regarding the book’s theoretical grounding, Gonçalves assembles, in dialogue, authors from the three disciplinary areas that he proposes to investigate interconnectedly: language, education, and theater. These are multiple voices, and concerning language studies in particular, the author goes beyond the texts of Bakhtin and the Circle to summon different commentators and researchers of this theoretical perspective. The dialogue also involves authors from the collection Teatro, Série Pedagogia do Teatro [Theater, Theater Pedagogy Series], such as Beatriz Cabral (2002), Flavio Desgranges (2006), and Gilberto Icle (2009).

Situated in the educational sphere, this volume presents analyses of utterances (named memorials) by actor-students about the staging processes, experienced throughout their Bachelor’s Degree in Theater-Interpretation at the Regional University of Blumenau [Universidade Regional de Blumenau - FURB]. Grounded on ADD, which Brait (2019) indicates in this volume as “a theoretical perspective that presents itself, particularly in Brazil, as a possible interpretation of the philosophical-artistic-discursive studies developed by Mikhail Bakhtin and the Circle” (p.12),³ Gonçalves analyzes how student-actors enunciate themselves, to whom they enunciate and what voices echo in these utterances. He reads between the lines of utterances, discursive voices, conflicting values, and subject positions that point to a social purview that is either immediate (the classroom and teacher/student relationships) or broad (education and the theater), and his analyses recover social imaginaries that circulate in these spaces. Nonetheless, it is not the aim of the book to classify students, professors or theater directors into theater or academic models. Indeed, the author aims to understand the voices that constitute the memorial-utterances he analyzes.

This volume is part of a discursive chain that dialogues with preceding and succeeding links of the spheres it investigates in an active response to their utterances. Some of these utterances are explicit and referenced; others are implicit in the different voices and social imaginaries present both in society and in the memorials that were analyzed. According to Vološinov (1986, p.95; emphasis in original) “a book, i.e., a verbal performance in print, is also an element of verbal communication” and is immerged in “in ideological colloquy of large scale: it responds to something, objects to something, affirms something anticipates possible responses and objections, seeks support, and so on.”⁴ For the Russian thinker, from a given situation of a scientific problem, “a verbal performance of this kind also inevitably orients itself with respect to previous performances in the same sphere both those by the same author and those by other authors” (VOLOŠINOV, 1986, p.95).⁵

Similar to an utterance, an element of discursive communication, we are allured to the way Gonçalves presents and titles each part of his work. First, we distinguish the fact that both introduction and conclusion are titled Ensaiando uma introdução [Rehearsing an Introduction] and Ensaio aberto [Open Rehearsal], respectively. By establishing an analogy to theater rehearsals, Gonçalves points to the unfinished nature and the unnecessary end of his discussions. The book, as a rehearsal, is positioned as an open dialogue and is open to dialogues.

In Ensaiando uma introdução [Rehearsing an Introduction], Gonçalves leads us to the first rehearsal of a performance in which experiences, objectives and theoretical approximations are put onto the stage and inaugurate new paths. In this prelude, the author intends to understand the process of theatrical creation at university. He assumes ADD as the perspective from which the relations between theater and university are investigated and also establishes the dialogue with his object, with the reader, with authors he has read and with himself.

The first part of the book, in which Gonçalves contextualizes the analyses and makes theoretical contracts with the reader, is composed of two chapters titled Pesquisar o teatro feito na universidade [Researching the Theater Made at University] and Pesquisar em perspectiva bakhtiniana [Researching from a Bakhtinian Perspective], respectively. In the former, Gonçalves declares his theoretical and practical place before bringing voices of other authors. He also positions himself as “an interpretative subject, who analyzes his data from a unique perspective, his place in the world, connecting results from his analyses to his own interpretive action” (p.29).⁶ According to Bakhtin (1986, p.142), “[u]nderstanding cannot be separated from evaluation: they are simultaneous and constitute a unified integral act. The person who understands approaches the work with his own already formed world view, from his own viewpoint […].”⁷ Thus aware, in addition to presenting a broader context, i.e., the one of theatrical creation in the academic sphere, Gonçalves describes his trajectory at university and claims that his analyses are pervaded by evaluative positions, a premise of the Bakhtinian analytical perspective. The author highlights that it is impossible to create strict categorizations or characterizations for analyses whose object is the theater or the theatrical creative process. In Gonçalves’ words, “narrating, describing the process of theatrical creation, is studying it closely so as to enable reflection on experiences” (p.31).⁸ Therefore, the very process of analysis turns into an utterance.

In the following chapter, Pesquisar em perspectiva bakhtiniana [Researching from a Bakhtinian Perspective], Gonçalves brings an overview of authors who have been dedicated to approximating performing arts with the formulations of Bakhtin, Voloshinov, and Medvedev. He affirms that researching that relation “seems not to have reached its great moment. In Brazil, few researchers have been thoroughly dedicated to investigating possible approximations between Bakhtinian reflections and performing arts” (p.45),⁹ hence the significance of the present work. Among the main concepts presented in the chapter are otherness, interaction, field/sphere, discursive voices, multivoicedness, axiological positions, and authorship. These concepts are premises and support all analyses throughout the volume.

The second Part of the book is also divided into two chapters: Vozes da educação no teatro [Voices from Education in Theater] and Vozes do teatro na educação [Voices from Theater in Education]. In these chapters, Gonçalves incites the reader to reflect on the interplay of voices and the multivoicedness present in the spheres he analyzes from a dialogical perspective: education and theater.

In Vozes da educação no teatro [Voices from Education in Theater], the first topic relates to social imaginaries of the professor as a conductor of theatrical practices at university. “Would he be a director-professor?” is the question that leads the discussion. The next topic addresses issues of professor authority. By asking, “Who makes the decisions?” Gonçalves discusses heteroglossia, the sociocultural encounter of social voices and the dialogical interplays of speeches that intersect. The issue of evaluation in theater is triggered by the question, “Will that be graded?” And the chapter ends with the discussion of the physical space of the classroom as a rehearsal space. Once again, the way utterances are presented is noteworthy because each of these topics, rather than names of concepts or analytical categories, are actually questions through which the author incites the reader and mobilizes his arguments. In other words, they are questions through which readers are summoned to a dialogue.

In Vozes do teatro na educação [Voices from Theater in Education], the topics are also presented through questions. Gonçalves first questions if the processes of scenic creation based on the model of collaborative process are utopic, thus making distinctions between concepts, such as collectivity and collaborative processes. Next, he addresses the authorship of the memorials under analysis and the “constitutive multivoicedness of the subjects and their utterances” (p.127).¹⁰ As to the second topic, Gonçalves debates the model of theater staging (or its actual existence) and the meanings attributed to the theater director. At this point, the author highlights the main differences between stage manager, stage director, theater director, and theater professor. The memorials point to social imaginaries once “voices are intertwined, juxtaposed; they produce different meanings, different possibilities of meaning in the very communicative-discursive situation” (p.143).¹¹ Finally, based on the notion of theater group as correlated to that of a university theater major, Gonçalves emphasizes the notion of centripetal enunciative forces (that tend to centralize power) and centrifugal enunciative forces (that resist an imposed power). The author’s very last discussion in the chapter, nonetheless, concerns the notion of otherness.

We note that the distinction between voices from theater in education and voices from education in theater is not only necessary but didactic, as one voice could not be analyzed without the other. The author thus argues that “an amalgam of voices” (p.125)¹² and utterances (the memorials) leads to voices that “dialogue with one another and recognize themselves in a dialogical space” (p.125).¹³

The book’s conclusion is titled Ensaio aberto [Open Rehearsal], a common practice in which theater groups invite guests to the final rehearsal of a play before its opening and during which the audience is called to interlocution. Choosing such a title for the book’s final remarks allows the author to clarify that his view is one of many possibilities and to invite readers to new propositions for theatrical creation from the dialogical perspective of Bakhtin and the Circle. Dialogically, “a text, just like a voice, is something that always calls to and welcomes other voices, intentionally or incidentally. […] voices are multifold and the moments and the ways they make themselves heard are numerous” (AMORIM, 2004, p.155).¹⁴ Therefore, the author dialogically invites readers to hear and make the mselves heard from the first to the last rehearsal in the book, from introduction to final remarks.

Teatro e universidade: Cena. Pedagogia. [Dialogismo] [Theater and University: Scene. Pedagogy. [Dialogism]] is an important contribution to researchers interested in Performing Arts (Scenic and Body Arts) as well as in Education and Language. This volume, as an utterance, modifies research studies in these spheres and incites new reflections regarding the disciplinary fields it proposes to investigate through its analytical object: the memorials of students from a theater major. By presenting a study that combines and interrelates those fields, Gonçalves leads us to the realization that boundaries between theater, education and language are not absolute, but are in dialogue - and the voices of one field traverse the other, reflect and refract other discursive voices.

REFERÊNCIAS

• AMORIM, M. O pesquisador e seu outro: Bakhtin nas ciências humanas. São Paulo: Musa Editora, 2004.
• BAKHTIN, M. Fragmentos dos anos 1970-1971. In: BAKHTIN, M. Notas sobre literatura, cultura e ciências humanas Organização, tradução, posfácio e notas de Paulo Bezerra. São Paulo: Editora 34, 2017, p.21-56.
• BRAIT, B. Entre a cena e a pedagogia, o dialogismo. In: GONÇALVES, J. Teatro e universidade: Cena. Pedagogia. [Dialogismo]. São Paulo: Hucitec, 2019, p.11-15.
• CABRAL, B. Avaliação em teatro: implicações, problemas e possibilidades. Revista Sala Preta, n.2, p.213-220, 2002. Disponível em: https://www.revistas.usp.br/salapreta/article/view/57093/60081 Acesso em: 28/02/2019.
  » https://www.revistas.usp.br/salapreta/article/view/57093/60081
• DESGRANGES, F. Pedagogia do teatro: provocação e dialogismo. São Paulo: Hucitec, 2006.
• ICLE, G. Pedagogia teatral como cuidado de si São Paulo: Hucitec, 2009.
• VOLÓCHINOV, V. Marxismo e filosofia da linguagem: problemas fundamentais do método sociológico na ciência da linguagem. Tradução, notas e glossário de Sheila Grillo e Ekaterina Vólkova Américo; ensaio introdutório deSheila Grillo. São Paulo: Editora 34, 2017.

• Translation by Larissa de Pinho Cavalcanti - [e-mail]
• 1
  In the original: “uma encenação possível do texto referência, constituindo-se como única e irrepetível.”
• 2
  In the original: “um universo vivo, movente, que não cessa de se expandir, exigindo dos que dele se aproximam (ou dos que são por ele atraídos...) muito estudo, muita dedicação, técnica, método, disciplina e, acima de tudo, uma excepcional capacidade de interpretação criativa.”
• 3
  In the original: “uma perspectiva teórica que se apresenta, principalmente no Brasil, como uma possibilidade de interpretação dos estudos filosóficos-artísticos-discursivos desenvolvidos por Mikhail Bakhtin e o Círculo.”
• 4
  VOLOŠINOV, V. Marxism and the Philosophy of Language. Translated by Ladislav Matejka and I.R. Titunik. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1986.
• 5
  For reference, see footnote 5.
• 6
  In the original: “um sujeito intérprete, que analisa seus dados a partir de sua visão única, de seu lugar no mundo, unindo os resultados da sua análise ao seu próprio gesto interpretativo.”
• 7
  BAKHTIN, M. From Notes Made in 1970-71. In: BAKHTIN, M. Speech Genres and Other Late Essays. Translated by Vern W. McGee. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press, 1986. pp.132-158.
• 8
  In the original: “narrar, descrever o processo de criação teatral, é debruçar-se sobre ele de forma que se possa refletir sobre vivências.”
• 9
  In the original: “parece ainda não ter tido seu momento de acontecimento. No Brasil, pouquíssimos pesquisadores têm-se dedicado com afinco a estudar as aproximações possíveis entre o pensamento bakhtiniano e as artes da cena” (p.45)
• 10
  In the original: “multivocalidade constituinte dos sujeitos e seus enunciados.”
• 11
  In the original: “as vozes estão imbricadas, sobrepostas, gerando outros sentidos, outras possibilidades de significação na própria situação comunicativo-discursiva.”
• 12
  In the original: “amálgama de vozes.”
• 13
  In the original: “conversando entre si, se reconhecendo num mesmo espaço dialógico.”
• 14
  In the original: “um texto, assim como uma voz, é algo que sempre chama outros, que sempre faz com que outras vozes cheguem, seja por intenção, seja por efeito. [...] as vozes são múltiplas e múltiplos são os momentos e os modos em que elas se fazem ouvir.”

Publication Dates

• Publication in this collection
  05 Aug 2019
• Date of issue
  Jul-Sep 2019

History

• Received
  31 Mar 2019
• Accepted
  03 June 2019