Will Bruce McConachie's pioneering sustained theory of audience reception convince sceptics of cognitive studies? Perhaps not, but in its formidable combination of clarity, engagement and rigour, it does present a persuasive case that theatre and performance studies should pay more attention to the workings of the mind. In three chapters, McConachie takes the readers from a general outline of theories of mind to a complex understanding of the relationship between cognition, evolution, society and culture in determining the spectator's experience. A historian at heart, the author grounds his argument in the initial productions of Oedipus Rex, Twelfth Night, Uncle Vanya, A Streetcar Named Desire, and Top Girls, drawing on a variety of evidence, including social/cultural histories. The cognitive theories he employs to support his argument include Lakoff and Johnson's work on metaphor, Ciompi and Panksepp on evolutionary categories of emotion, Gallese on mirror neurons and empathy, and Nettle on cognition and genre theory.
McConachie takes care to explain each theory independently and to demonstrate the value of applying it to historical contexts, while being equally careful to acknowledge the limitations of each and avoid unsustainable claims. In a necessary Epilogue, he then shifts from using historical examples to illuminate the theory to demonstrating how the combined force of the different theoretical positions can be used as a basis for exploring historical productions. Employing cognitive studies can be tricky. The boom in the market for books about the mind and brain has led to a proliferation of wildly speculative theories based on little or no actual science as well as responsible and clearly documented texts. At the same time, depending on scientific writing is difficult because experiments are highly focused and, to scholars in the arts, overly reductive. McConachie navigates these dangerous waters brilliantly. Focusing on authors with impeccable credentials in the field, he uses endnotes to lead the interested reader deeper into the material, citing specific studies to support both his own argument and the theories on which he draws. This choice avoids his writing being burdened by the science and keeps it accessible to the non-specialist.
His study is a landmark in both theatre history and theories of audience reception. It recognizes the value of existing approaches while challenging scholars to acknowledge the undeniable importance of understanding how the mind works in the construction of historical narratives and in speculations on how we experience theatre.
