Theatre of Chaos: Beyond Absurdism, into Orderly Disorder.(Review)

William W. Demastes. Theatre of Chaos: Beyond Absurdism, into Orderly Disorder. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998. Pp. xvii + 190. $59.95

In Theatre of Chaos William W. Demastes has joined the small coterie of contemporary critics attempting to forge ties between modern physics and literary theory. The premise of such studies is that deeply-held paradigms influence the entire culture, governing the way in which both scientists and humanists conduct their inquiries. Demastes attempts to demonstrate that modern drama reflects both the uncertainties of the quantum universe and the structured unpredictability of modern chaos theory.

The book contains five chapters, the first of which is ambitiously subtitled, "The New Science Metaphor and Modern Drama--A Brief History of Western Thought." Demastes believes there is an enduring conflict between two broad world views. The earlier of these recognizes a "necessary interplay between order and disorder" (1). In ancient times this acceptance of chaos was found within Eastern philosophy, Hesiod's Theogony, Dionysian religion, and the writings of Lucretius. These ideas were also implicit in the Romantic revolution and have recently resurfaced in quantum mechanics and chaos theory.

The other basic world view seeks rationality and order while condemning chaos as evil and destructive. Demastes cites Aristotle, Descartes, and Galileo as holding this view, but Newton is the dominant figure. Although Demastes recognizes the importance of Newtonian science, he also finds it sharply limited because of its reliance on "linear thinking" and its presumed antagonism to the broader, more inclusive notions of modern chaos theory. In literary studies Newtonian physics leads toward naturalism, but Demastes makes a convincing case that even Zola "eventually realized the subjective nature of the choices he made" (13), thus anticipating the uncertainty principle in quantum mechanics.

In chapter 1, "Quantum Physics as Metaphor: Elliptical Beginnings of the New Paradigm," Demastes explains quantum theory by using the example of the double slit experiment, which shows that electrons are both particles and waves. In doing so, Demastes occasionally misrepresents the implications of quantum theory by claiming that it undermines or even overturns Newtonian rationalism. Quantum theory actually explains in exact mathematical language how Newtonian physics works at the margins of reality where the things we are studying (electrons) are nearly as small as the things we must use to study them (light waves). The Shroedinger equation simplifies into the more familiar equations of Newtonian dynamics as the mass of the objects to be examined increases. Demastes sees a conflict between scientific paradigms when in fact there is none.

The chapter concludes by applying quantum indeterminism to two plays: Tom Stoppard's Hapgood and Arthur Miller's Death of a Salesman. Since Stoppard was explicitly seeking to illustrate double agency in the quantum world and the world of espionage, the play nicely illustrates quantum mechanics, but Demastes's critical insights shine a steady, informative light on characters who seem to pass through two doors at once and believe contradictory things simultaneously. Demastes argues that the complexities of the fragmented and schizophrenic modern world demand of us this ability to reject the false dichotomy of "either/or" choices and instead accept in ourselves and in others a more open-ended, nonrational "both-and" alternative (49). His argument would have been even stronger had he acknowledged more openly that the universe is simultaneously relativistic, Newtonian, and quantum mechanical.

Demastes is less persuasive and successful in analyzing Miller's Death of a Salesman. He argues that Willie Loman's basic failing is an inability to achieve the double agency of being both a good father and a good business man. True, but Willie's failing isn't so much an inability to achieve quantum double agency as it is an inability to achieve much of anything. Bad spouse, bad father, bad business man, Willie would seem at first to be a loser, a nonentity. Paradoxically, though, Miller makes us realize that Willie Loman is somehow greater than the sum of his parts--and that the same thing may be true for the rest of us as well. There is a kind of quantum logic here, a both/and-ness that Demastes inexplicably fails to pursue.