• Ulla Kallenbach


This chapter presents the concept of imagination and its relevance for drama analysis. Kallenbach discusses how an analytical perspective for studying imagination in the drama text may be set up—positioned in the intersection between text and performance and taking the perspective of the active, implied spectator. Kallenbach considers the variety of understandings of imagination and argues that the cognitive processes of imagination must be complemented by a historical contextualization. Imagination must further be studied in interplay with physicalization; that is, the sensory, spatial scenic elements. She then develops an analytical framework that facilitates examination of how the spectator is engaged, asking how the presentation of the performance triggers the activation of the spectator’s imagination to perform an act of transformation into re-presentation.


  1. Agnati, Luigi Francesco, Diego Guidolin, Leontino Battistin, Giuseppe Pagnoni, and Kjell Fuxe. “The Neurobiology of Imagination: Possible Role of Interaction-Dominant Dynamics and Default Mode Network.” Frontiers in Psychology 4 (2013-May-24, 2013).Google Scholar
  2. Anderson, Ruth Leila. Elizabethan Psychology and Shakespeare’s Plays. University of Iowa Studies. Iowa City: Russell & Russell, 1927.Google Scholar
  3. Aristotle. Poetics [in Greek text with parallel English translation]. Translated by Stephen Halliwell. Loeb Classical Library. Edited by G. P. Goold, Cambridge, MA; London: Harvard University Press, 1995.Google Scholar
  4. Beaney, Michael. Imagination and Creativity. 2nd ed. Milton Keynes: Open University, 2010.Google Scholar
  5. Braga, Corin. ““Imagination”, “Imaginaire”, “Imaginal”: Three Concepts for Defining Creative Fantasy.” Journal for the Study of Religions and Ideologies 6, no. 16 (2007): 59–68.Google Scholar
  6. Casey, Edward S. Getting Back into Place: Toward a Renewed Understanding of the Place-World. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1993.Google Scholar
  7. Castoriadis, Cornelius. The Imaginary Institution of Society [L’institution imaginaire de la société]. Translated by Kathleen Blamey. Cambridge: Polity Press, 1997. 1975.Google Scholar
  8. Certeau, Michel de. The Practice of Everyday Life [Arts de faire]. Translated by Steven F. Rendall. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1984. 1980.Google Scholar
  9. Cook, Amy. Shakespearean Neuroplay: Reinvigorating the Study of Dramatic Texts and Performance through Cognitive Science. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2010.Google Scholar
  10. Crane, Mary Thomas. Shakespeare’s Brain: Reading with Cognitive Theory. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2000.Google Scholar
  11. De Landa, Manuel. A New Philosophy of Society: Assemblage Theory and Social Complexity. London: Continuum, 2006.Google Scholar
  12. Hedley, Douglas. Living Forms of the Imagination. London: T & T Clark, 2008.Google Scholar
  13. Iser, Wolfgang. The Fictive and the Imaginary: Charting Literary Anthropology [Das Fiktive und das Imaginäre. Perspektiven literatischer Antrophologie]. Baltimore and London: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1993. 1991.Google Scholar
  14. ———. How to Do Theory. How to Study Literature. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publ., 2006.Google Scholar
  15. ———. The Implied Reader: Patterns of Communication in Prose Fiction from Bunyan to Beckett. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1983. 3.Google Scholar
  16. ———. “Indeterminacy and the Reader’s Response.” In Aspects of Narrative, edited by J. Hillis Miller. English Institute Publications, 1–45. New York: Columbia University Press, 1971.Google Scholar
  17. Kennedy, Dennis. The Oxford Encyclopedia of Theatre & Performance. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003.Google Scholar
  18. Kuiper, Kathleen. Merriam-Webster’s Encyclopedia of Literature. Springfield, MA: Merriam-Webster, 1995.Google Scholar
  19. Lehmann, Hans-Thies. Postdramatic Theatre [Postdramatisches Theater]. Translated by Karen Jürs-Munby. London: Routledge, 2006. 1999.Google Scholar
  20. Lessing, Gotthold Ephraim. Hamburg Dramaturgy [Hamburgerische Dramaturgie]. Translated by Helen Zimmern. New York: Dover, 1962. 1769.Google Scholar
  21. Luckhurst, Mary. Dramaturgy: A Revolution in Theatre. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006.Google Scholar
  22. Marinis, Marco De. “Dramaturgy of the Spectator.” The Drama Review: TDR 31, no. 2 (1987): 100–14.Google Scholar
  23. Modell, Arnold H. Imagination and the Meaningful Brain. Cambridge, MA, London: MIT Press, 2006.Google Scholar
  24. Rancière, Jacques. The Emancipated Spectator [Le spectateur émancipé]. Translated by Gregory Elliot. London, New York: Verso, 2009. 2008.Google Scholar
  25. Richardson, Alan. The Neural Sublime: Cognitive Theories and Romantic Texts. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2010.Google Scholar
  26. Ricoeur, Paul. “The Function of Fiction in Shaping Reality.” Man and World 12, no. 2 (1979): 123–41.Google Scholar
  27. Rossky, William. “Imagination in the English Renaissance: Psychology and Poetic.” Studies in the Renaissance 5 (1958): 49–73.Google Scholar
  28. Stevenson, Leslie. “Twelve Conceptions of Imagination.” The British Journal of Aesthetics 43, no. 3 (July 1, 2003 2003): 238–59.Google Scholar
  29. Turner, Cathy, and Synne K. Behrndt. Dramaturgy and Performance. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2008.Google Scholar
  30. Wihstutz, Benjamin. Theater der Einbildung: zur Wahrnehmung und Imagination des Zuschauers. Theater der Zeit Recherchen. Berlin: Theater der Zeit, 2007.Google Scholar
  31. Zittoun, Tania, and Alex Gillespie. “Imagination: Creating Alternatives in Everyday Life.” In The Palgrave Handbook of Creativity and Culture Research, edited by Vlad Petre Glăveanu. Palgrave Studies in Creativity and Culture, 225–42. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2016.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ulla Kallenbach
    • 1
  1. 1.University of Southern DenmarkOdenseDenmark

Personalised recommendations