Abstract

Theatre history writing in the United States has changed in diverse and theoretically sophisticated ways over the last twenty years. These changes primarily represented a shift from a positivist to a postpositivist epistemology. The goals of this study of contemporary theatre history writing were: to identify the similarities and differences between the positivist and postpositivist approaches to the writing of history, particularly theatre history; and to examine the theatre history writing of three postpositivist theatre historians in terms of their influences, organizing principles, and methods, in order to identify the dimensions and the complexity of postpositivist thought as it has been applied to the writing of theatre history. ;Chapter One summarizes the empirical tradition of positivism in theatre history writing, and then compares the basic assumptions and ideas of positivism with postpositivism in its two constituent forms, relativism and realism. Realism is favored as an effective critique of positivism because it recognizes multiple levels of reality. ;In Chapters Two through Four, the practical theatre history writing of theatre historians Tracy C. Davis, Bruce A. McConachie, and Joseph R. Roach is examined using similar categories. On a continuum from relativism to realism, Tracy Davis is the most realistic, Bruce McConachie comes out between realism and relativism, and Joseph Roach can be positioned near the relativist boundary of the realist critique. ;The Summary and Conclusion compares these three historians to one another and to the characteristics of postpositivism outlined in Chapter One. The writing of each historian exhibits characteristics of realism, though each one's work represents a unique approach to theatre history writing. Put together, the postpositivist theatre history writing of all three is more "realist" than "relativist." Postpositivist theatre history generally can be understood as realist in its epistemological and methodological orientation. As such, realist theatre historiography might usefully challenge positivist traditions in theatre history writing. One place where this study finds potential for the continuation and development of the postpositivist challenge is in the theatre history classroom