Over the course of the XX century, spactatorship has fell from grace of critical thinkers. As it became interlocked with passivity, spectatorship has come to be viewed as a remnant of old, hierarchical, mindless days of thetrical practices.
In his famous lecture turned article turned book, Ranciere emancipates spectator, claiming that such a dominant view on spectatorship is itself discriminatory - there is much more going on in the head of a seemingly passive spectator that we usually come to think. And this is no news for anyone, we all are thoughtful yet often in the position of spectators - so why does it have to be bad in thetare? As Ranciere puts it: "[spectators] are active as interpreters, who try to invent their own translation in order to appropriate the story for themselves and make their own story out of it". This text repositions the debate on audience activity from form to the experience. So far it has inspiried many authors to rethink their interpretation of theatre participation - it might as well inspire you.