As an overarching political and social rationality, neoliberalism is simultaneously ubiquitous and invisible. Encountering its shattering real-life consequences is almost inevitable, yet concretizing the multifarious ideological and practical facets of its implications proves challenging. This elusiveness calls for a unique strategy in analyzing the effects of neoliberalism on particular social phenomena. While taking into account the diverse forms and social specificities of that phenomenon, any examination must remain cautious of neoliberalism’s broader ramifications. Following this trajectory, Neoliberalism, Theatre and Performance situates theatre and performance in the context of the governing logic that “submits all human activities, values, institutions, and practices to market principles” (Brown 2011:118).

Published as part of Routledge’s 4x45 project, the book consists of four chapters, originally presented as 45-minute videos hosted on the Digital Theatre+ website. In chapter 1, Jen Harvie elaborates how theatre is embedded within the anxieties of the neoliberal society, tainted as it is by some of its worst economic and ideological implications, while offering novel opportunities for social resistance. Commencing with a brief but precise introduction, Harvie uses a wide range of references—from Michael Moore’s 2009 film Capitalism: A Love Story to Richard Dawkins’s The Selfish Gene (1976)—to frame neoliberalism. By deftly emphasizing neoliberalism’s tendency to promote meritocracy at the outset, Harvie proceeds to demonstrate how “neoliberalism’s shrunken, austere state infrastructure meant a shrunken, less diverse, more homogenized, generally less innovative theatre” (31). The author explores themes of market dominance, competition, and entrepreneurialism in Caryl Churchill’s Serious Money (1987) and Lucy Prebble’s Enron (2009), before concluding the chapter by discussing how theatre can employ creative strategies to practice collaboration and solidarity in a productivity-based society.

Adopting a more practical approach, the next chapter focuses on neoliberalism in a festival context. Liesbeth Groot Nibbelink discusses the complexities of programming for a theatre event in a competitive neoliberal market with Rainer Hofmann, the artistic director of the SPRING Performing Arts Festival in Utrecht. Citing works by Eko Supriyanto, Ho Rui An, Bouchra Ouizguen, and Julian Hetzel, the two extend their conversation to a wide range of topics, culminating in a central question: How can festivals remain “local” while functioning in a globalized market of festival circuits? Hofmann argues for presenting diverse performance modes while avoiding treating them as exotic productions. Instead of exhibiting traditional performances, he is more interested in the works of non-Western artists who reflect on and resist “the unquestionable legitimacy of neoliberalism” through a combination of traditional and contemporary forms (50). The conversation provides a useful framework for the book’s next chapter in which Cristina Rosa examines contemporary dance in a Brazilian context.

Drawing on the works of Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak and Enrique Quijano, Rosa problematizes the cultural dynamics of neoliberalism through the lens of the persisting coloniality of power and epistemology. In a society where people have “felt the violation of their civil liberties and the suppression of their cultural diversity at the bodily level” (73), Rosa utilizes data from government bodies to elucidate how the mechanisms of tax deductions and waivers have enabled the promotion of European dance practices in Brazil. The large corporations and banks that invest in art to improve their public image prioritize the production of cultural commodities that “please the segments of the population with a higher purchasing power, i.e., the elites” (77). As a result, internationally acclaimed companies such as Grupo Corpo and Deborah Colker, whose ballet-trained dancers produce works that “fit within Western/Eurocentric forms” (82), benefit the most from the tax deduction regulations. Neoliberalism’s attritional competition, as Rosa notes, has led to precarious working conditions for theatre practitioners and less support for Afro-Brazilian and Indigenous artistic and cultural practices. Describing Brazil’s dance scene as a site for political resistance, Rosa concludes the chapter by acknowledging “an army of artists-citizens” who protest against the neoliberal policies of Jair Bolsonaro’s alt-right administration (84). While continuing their theatre practices under increasing financial pressure, these artists have pressed for changes in legislations, both at the municipal and national levels (86).

The term artist-citizen coalesces aesthetic and quotidian performance, allowing new opportunities of social expression for artists while suggesting performance-based approaches to social resistance. Embracing this merger, Sarah Woods and Andrew Simms present an account of their performance Neoliberalism: The Break-up Tour (2017), moving between conversation and excerpts from their performance text. Gathering together the pioneering neoliberal thinkers as an itinerant band, the performance attempts to demystify neoliberalism’s “Theory of Perfect Markets under Perfect Competition” (94) by debunking its absurd assumptions about market self-regulation and unlimited economic growth. Although reductive in its simplicity, the piece remains engaging and informative by using different modes of performance: double-act repartee, puppet performance, audience interaction, and game scenarios. In their conversation, Woods and Simms provide fruitful insight into their creative process, bridging the realms of sociopolitical activism and theatre-making by articulating the urgency of creating a counter-narrative to neoliberalism that “takes you outside the system and forces you to see it whole” (98). By situating theatre in the broad project of understanding and contesting neoliberalism, the final chapter embodies the core premise of the first three chapters.

Neoliberalism, Theatre and Performance provides its reader with a comprehensive account of neoliberalism’s presence as a governing socioeconomic structure but lacks sufficient explanation of its historical roots. By disconnecting neoliberalism from the “serious crisis of capital accumulation during the 1970s” (Harvey 2005:57), the book risks abstracting its subject from a wider capitalist rationality in which neoliberalism has flourished. Nevertheless, the book allows theatre scholars and practitioners to gain valuable insight into the ideological background of neoliberalism while suggesting new ways of resisting its far-reaching implications.