Utopia might always prove impossible. But it should not be entirely abandoned as a concept, or as a goal toward which work might be directed. It is hard to see how meaningful change could arise without at least some sense of utopian possibility. The architectural historian Nathaniel Coleman argues in this vein that simply “making-do with reality may be compensatory, but limits possibility, transforming apparent pragmatic agency into its capture by enclosing realism.”1 Dealing with reality—often enough by making do—while keeping an eye on more magical possibilities has sometimes appeared, and has certainly been claimed, as the founding experience of making theatre. Theatres have seemed unique places where much might happen. If they are indeed special places, able to achieve special things, then they are not simply ebullient, but like Foucault's “heterotopias” able to combine dissident elements at the margins. Even when viewed at considerable historical distance, theatrical companies can appear truculent, wayward, and unsettling, even when they remain exploitative, manipulative, hierarchical—as many utopias are.2 Inequities and exclusions based on race, sexuality, gender, and class are not absent from theatrical life. Coleman's point, however, is really to argue that that it ought to be possible to imagine sites and patterns of work that are not already foreclosed by the demands of the market, the law, or other forms of curtailment. It should be equally possible to imagine people coming together, bringing their skills, and working out how they might be combined. Reality and its utopian antithesis might then valuably contradict and coalesce. The combination is never easy. Imperatives, financial and otherwise, loomed large over theatres in Georgian England, as they do today. But improvisation and collective effort could both respond to and yet resist such downward pressures, to make something that is at least potentially dissident, as much a way of working as the work produced.

中文翻译：

---

拯救理查德·库尔·德·莱昂：谢里登特鲁里巷的竞争、排练和表演

乌托邦可能永远被证明是不可能的。但它不应该被完全放弃作为一个概念，或者作为一个工作可能指向的目标。如果没有至少某种乌托邦可能性的感觉，就很难看出有意义的改变会如何出现。建筑历史学家纳撒尼尔·科尔曼（Nathaniel Coleman）以这种方式认为，简单地“凑合现实可能是一种补偿，但限制了可能性，通过封闭现实主义将表面上的务实机构转变为对其的捕获。”1处理现实——通常是凑合——同时关注更多神奇的可能性有时会出现，而且肯定有人声称，作为制作戏剧的奠基经验。剧院似乎是一个独特的地方，在那里可能会发生很多事情。如果它们确实是特殊的地方，能够实现特殊的事情，那么它们就不仅仅是热情洋溢的，而是像福柯的“异托邦”一样能够将边缘的异见元素结合起来。即使从相当大的历史距离来看，戏剧公司也可能显得好斗、任性和令人不安，即使它们仍然像许多乌托邦一样具有剥削性、操纵性和等级制度。2基于种族、性取向、性别和阶级的不平等和排斥在戏剧生活中并不存在。然而，科尔曼的观点实际上是认为，应该可以想象出尚未被市场、法律或其他形式的限制的要求所排除的场所和工作模式。同样可以想象人们聚集在一起，发挥他们的技能，并研究如何将他们结合起来。现实及其乌托邦的对立面可能会产生有价值的矛盾和融合。这种结合绝非易事。正如今天一样，乔治王朝时期的英格兰剧院在财务和其他方面都面临着巨大的压力。但即兴创作和集体努力既可以应对这种下行压力，又可以抵抗这种下行压力，从而创造出至少具有潜在异见性的东西，就像所产生的作品一样成为一种工作方式。