ReviewReviewed Work(s): Staging Trauma: Bodies in Shadow by Haughton Review by: Eve Polley Source: The Harold Pinter Review , Vol. 3, No. 1 (2019), pp. 75-77 Published by: Penn State University Press Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5325/haropintrevi.3.1.0075 JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org. Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at https://about.jstor.org/terms Penn State University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Harold Pinter Review This content downloaded from 140.203.248.85 on Thu, 06 Jun 2019 13:53:27 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms BOOK REVIEWS Staging Trauma: Bodies in Shadow by Miriam Haughton. (London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2018). ISBN 978-1-137-53663-1. Pp. vii + 243. Hardcover, $79.99. Eve Polley University of Louisville Representations of the violations of rape and abuse, the losses of dying and death, the confinement of the marginalized, and the suffering of the exiled comprise the conceptual and experiential framework of Miriam Haughton’s inaugural monograph, Staging Trauma: Bodies in Shadow. In it she examines four theatrical productions and grapples with them as case studies of artistic endeavor at the intersection of performance and trauma studies. Rather than confining her inquiry to the stage, Haughton’s analyses incorporate the sociopolitical and artistic contexts in which these works were authored, presented, and received. Of the productions Haughton considers, two were of scripted plays: On Raftery’s Hill (2000) by Marina Carr and Colder Than Here (2005) by Laura Wade. The third was a site-specific performance entitled Laundry (2011), directed by Louise Lowe, and the fourth was Sanctuary (2013), staged by director Teya Sepinuck and performed by nonactors relaying their own experiences. Haughton's previous work includes co-editorship of the critically acclaimed Radical Contemporary Theatre Practices by Women in Ireland (2015), and articles in international peer-reviewed journals, principally on topics related to theater and culture. The Harold Pinter Review, Vol. 3, 2019 Copyright © 2019 The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA This content downloaded from 140.203.248.85 on Thu, 06 Jun 2019 13:53:27 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms HAROLD PINTER REVIEW 76 Haughton provides a foundation for the subsequent case studies by clarifying her conceptualizations of theater and trauma. Theater is not merely a creation of playwrights, directors, performers, and other theater artists, but is a space of encounter among artists and audiences contextualized by the political and social spaces they inhabit. In temporal terms, a theatrical production spans the preparatory period before it premieres, its embodiment during performances, and memories of it afterward. In defining trauma, she draws on historical theories of hysteria and contemporary ideations of post-traumatic stress disorder. The first case study, On Raftery’s Hill, premiered in 2000 in Ireland, the United Kingdom, and the United States, and was coproduced by the West of Ireland’s Druid Theatre and London’s Royal Court Theatre. Haughton describes the conclusion of act 1, an incestuous rape of daughter by father at their rural homestead in Ireland and the surrounding narrative of four generations of abuse in the family. Referencing Judith Herman in Trauma and Recovery (1992), Haughton analyzes the relation between private and public trauma by drawing parallels between violations perpetrated “behind closed doors” (51) and institutionalized violations protected by the laws and customs of the nation-state. Haughton’s second case study, Colder Than Here, was premiered by the Soho Theatre London in 2005. The emphasis in this section is on the trauma of loss as conveyed by a story of the death of a middle-class English woman due to cancer. Here Haughton continues to employ her methodology of examining the individual and collective aspects of trauma. The private trauma, to the woman, is the protracted process of dying. The private trauma, to the family, is the loss of wife and mother. A public trauma, in turn, is the consequences of living in the postindustrial era with regards to cancers of the body. Haughton notes physical and conceptual congruencies among sick bodies, families, societies, and environments. The production of the third case study, Laundry, was staged in an abandoned Magdalene laundry facility in Ireland in 2011. As Haughton explains, Magdalene laundries were sites of confinement for women, poor and proclaimed to be morally or mentally unfit, who were forced to inhabit them by state and church authorities as recently as the 1990s. The audience was present in the actual locale that the performance portrays, and audience members were invited to participate in the writing of the performance. In her analysis, Haughton interweaves the individual traumas of the confined women with the collective trauma of the nation due to the revelation of these practices. The final case study, Sanctuary, premiered in 2013 in Northern Ireland. The variety of trauma in question is that of exile, and in this theatrical This content downloaded from 140.203.248.85 on Thu, 06 Jun 2019 13:53:27 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms BOOK REVIEWS presentation it was the exiled who shared their own testimonies directly with the audience. Director Sepinuck terms the performance a “Theatre of Witness” (161). Bringing together insights from performances and the written work of its director, Haughton comments on the ethical and artistic complications and opportunities of this form of exposition. Haughton concludes with reflections on the scope and power of theatrical performance as it relates to trauma, particularly to “bodies in shadow,” that is, those who are marginalized by virtue of their social status. Uniting her analyses of the case studies, Haughton argues that all four manifest relationality and offer challenges to the “Westernised master narrative” (207) of patriarchal familial structures and neoliberal ideologies. Her hopeful final reflection is that components of an intersectional fourth wave of feminism are evident in each of these productions. She argues that theater artists—with their proclivity and ability to stage controversial subject matter that might be rejected if presented through other media—can be at the forefront of this movement. Here I will venture to offer one minor critique of the work, which is that she might elaborate on these interesting concluding remarks. The origin of this suggestion is twofold. First, given the wonderfully in-depth case studies offered, a longer conclusion would surely be appreciated by many readers. Second, although I find her final call to action compelling, I wonder if it might be more persuasive to those whose values do not already align with it if the manner in which she arrived at her conclusions was described in greater detail. In summary, Staging Trauma is an exceptionally interdisciplinary, multifaceted, and reflective work of scholarship that examines the significance of the theatrical performance of trauma in individual and societal terms. It is recommended for students and scholars of many different interests including critical studies of theater and performance, trauma studies, and feminist theory. Those whose work is of a psychological or sociological orientation might also find it engaging with regards to the manner in which such discourses interface with artistic considerations. Finally, it is undoubtedly relevant for theater professionals who stage works that represent trauma in its variety of forms, especially those who are interested in doing so with social implications and ends in mind. As Haughton concludes, “Onwards.” is a doctoral student in the Department of Comparative Humanities at the University of Louisville. EVE POLLEY This content downloaded from 140.203.248.85 on Thu, 06 Jun 2019 13:53:27 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms 77