Engagement and Dramatic Form in the Theoretical Thought of Slobodan Selenić

Abstract

This study examines Slobodan Selenić’s theoretical thought on the relationship between engagement and dramatic form, focusing primarily on his book Engagement in Dramatic Form (1965). With the aim of systematizing the most significant postulates Selenić establishes in his interpretation of modern drama, the paper demonstrates that his contribution is simultaneously poetics-based, methodological, and theatrological: he proposes a model of reading drama that rejects dogmatic criteria and insists on an analysis of the internal logic of each individual dramatic work. A key result of the research is the confirmation that Selenić understands engagement more broadly than is common in reductive political interpretations. For him, engagement is not merely a message or an ideological declaration, but the entire intellectual-emotional totality of the drama, its focal point and generative principle. In this sense, drama is understood as “a particular engagement in a particular, dramatic form,” and artistic value cannot be determined outside the relationship between engagement and form. The research shows that this premise has a dual function: it is both a theoretical instrument for evaluating dramatic texts and an autopoetic matrix that enables the reading of Selenić’s own dramatic solutions. The paper also analyzes Selenić’s rejection of universal aesthetic systems and his critique of “dogmatic criticism,” which validates recognized works by applying predefined rules and thus necessarily dismisses different poetics. In contrast, Selenić demands that criteria of evaluation be sought within the work itself and within the “closed world” of the drama. This position is shown to be one of the most important aspects of his continuing relevance for contemporary studies of drama and theatre. The study then systematizes his distinction between naturalistic and constructivist forms. These types are not treated as hierarchically opposed, but as different modes of shaping engagement: naturalistic drama strives for the illusion of apparent reality, while constructivist drama aims to reveal its essence, often through anti-illusionist procedures. The research emphasizes the significance of Selenić’s reflections on the role of language, myth, and the performative aspect, as well as his insistence on activating the spectator as a prerequisite for the engagement of modern theatre. In the section on reception, the paper shows that Engagement in Dramatic Form was paradoxically weakly received by critics at the time of its publication, which may be related to editorial policies and the ideological-cultural context of the 1960s. At the same time, the research confirms that this book remains a foundational reference point for understanding the poetic, generic, and thematic interweaving of modern drama, and that Selenić’s model of the relationship between engagement and form continues to possess strong analytical and interpretative potential.