Victims and perpetrators: Negotiating the binaries in Sarah Kane’s Phaedra’s Love
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.main##
Abstract
Sarah Kane’s body of work remains vital in its appeal for fairness, as she discloses human predicaments in her society. Set in the house of Theseus; a contemporary royal family, Kane’s Phaedra’s Love problematizes two main concerns in contemporary British drama― class and gender― which are ambivalently interpreted. This study demonstrates how the underprivileged are treated in the mainstream society and assesses how they quest for self-hood in such states. Kane’s Phaedra’s Love represents two major groups of people in present-day Britain: victims and perpetrators. Like in the play, these sets of people exist in every society given that oppression, injustice and inequality occupy a great space. The privileged and the majority consider themselves powerful and superior to the “others”, not considering that everyone is powerful at his/her own level. The struggle between “the powerful” and “the weak” becomes a visible reality as the latter fight to negotiate space, make their voices heard, and recreate new identities for themselves. The New Historicist approach suits this context since it discusses power relations in the society as encapsulated in the play of Kane. Power circulates at different levels, and not only at the top. Characters that are side-lined by dominant philosophies in Kane’s Phaedra’s Love preoccupy themselves with constructing their identities and making their voices clearly heard.
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.displayStats.downloads##
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.details##
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
This open-access article is distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) 4.0 license.
You are free to:
Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format.
Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially. The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms.
Under the following terms: Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
No additional restrictions: You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.
How to Cite
References
Alfredson, T. & Azeta C. (n.d). “Negotiation Theory and Practice: A Review of the Literature” Easypol Modules. Retrieved Nov 2016.
Darl, R. A. (1957). “The Concept of Power. System Research and Behavioral Science. New York:
Bobbs – Merrill. 201-215.
De Vos, L. & Graham S. (2010). Sarah Kane in Context. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
Foucault, M. (1972). The Archeology of Knowledge. London: Tavistock.
---. (1980). Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other writings. London: Harvester.
Greenblatt, S. (1980). Renaissance Self-fashioning: From More to Shakespeare. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Kane, S. (2001). Phaedra’s Love in Sarah Kane Complete Plays. London: Methuen.
Isha, P. (2013). “Violence and the Ontological Question – Fatal Dynamics and Aggression in Sarah
Kane”. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science Invention. Vol 2. Issue
, 14-19. Retrieved. Jan 2018.
Saunders, G. (2009). About Kane. London: Faber and Faber.
---. (2002). Love Me or Kill Me. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
Tyson, L. (2006). critical theory today: A User Friendly Guide. New York: Routledge, 2rd edition.