Diego Santos Sánchez
I earned my PhD in Contemporary Spanish Theatre at the Universidad de Alcalá (2008) after a four-year FPU fellowship which included a one-year sojourn as Visiting Scholar at Harvard (2006), where my thesis was co-supervised. Since completion of my PhD I subsequently held four post-doctoral positions. I was first Research Associate at Durham University (United Kingdom) in the frame of an AHRC-funded project on Theatre Censorship in 20th-century Spain (2008-2011). After this, I worked as Post-doctoral Researcher at the Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona within GEXEL (Grupo de Estudios del Exilio Literario) (2011-2013). Following this, I worked at the Institut für Romanistik of the Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin (Germany) as recipient of an Alexander von Humboldt Foundation fellowship (2013-2015). Finally, I was Researcher at the Universidad de Alcalá (2015-2017). In late 2017 I was appointed Assistant Professor (Profesor Ayudante Doctor) at Universidad Complutense de Madrid, where I promoted to Associate Professor (Profesor Contratado Doctor) in early 2021.
My research focuses on the links between theatre and the Franco dictatorship. I am especially interested in studying how theatre practice and theatre policies interacted with one another during the Franco regime and how this interaction shaped the theatre canon and cultural memory in Spain. To that end, I have addressed theatre from a myriad of epistemological paradigms, including Literary and Performance Studies, Cultural History, Cultural Studies and Memory Studies. This work concentrates on five major aspects: the first stage of my career was devoted to (1) playwright Fernando Arrabal but, during the last decade, my research has revolved around more wide-ranging phenomena such as (2) censorship, (3) State theatre policies, (4) University theatre and (5) the 1939 theatrical exile. While my main interest lays in the intersection between theatre and the Franco regime, my research also pays attention to each of these two axes separately. Firstly, I have addressed theatre under totalitarianism trans-nationally and comparatively, paying attenton to how dictatorships impact theatre practice worldwide, especially in the Hispanic world. Secondly, I am currently paying particular attention to cultural and literary production beyond theatre under the Franco regime. This latter line of research is mostly conducted along with my colleague Fernando Larraz (Universidad de Alcalá), with whom, among other initiatives, I organise the international conference Literatura y Franquismo, held every two years.
My research has taken the form of 2 authored books, 2 edited volumes, 4 co-edited volumes, 3 edited journal issues, 3 edited plays and about 40 journal articles and book chapters. These publications include highly-indexed journals (Revista de Literatura, Estreno, Modern Language Review, Revista Chilena de Literatura, Bulletin of Hispanic Studies, Arbor and Neophilologus, inter alia) and prestigious publishers (Routledge, Tamesis, Arco Libros, Renacimiento) both in Spain and beyond. In addition to publishing, I have amply disseminated the outcomes of my research in multiple conferences and through several invited lectures and keynote addresses. I have also participated in 8 competitively-awarded funded research projects and am active member of various research groups in Spain and abroad, including ITEM (Instituto del Teatro de Madrid). Further to this, I am committed to academic exchange and created BETA. Asociación de Jóvenes Doctores en Hispanismo (http://asociacionbeta.com/), a global network for post-docs in Hispanic Studies I was president of for almost 7 years. I was member of the editorial board of 452ºF. Journal of Literary Theory and Comparative Literature (www.452f.com) until 2020 and am currently secretary of Talía. Revista de Estudios Teatrales.
My research focuses on the links between theatre and the Franco dictatorship. I am especially interested in studying how theatre practice and theatre policies interacted with one another during the Franco regime and how this interaction shaped the theatre canon and cultural memory in Spain. To that end, I have addressed theatre from a myriad of epistemological paradigms, including Literary and Performance Studies, Cultural History, Cultural Studies and Memory Studies. This work concentrates on five major aspects: the first stage of my career was devoted to (1) playwright Fernando Arrabal but, during the last decade, my research has revolved around more wide-ranging phenomena such as (2) censorship, (3) State theatre policies, (4) University theatre and (5) the 1939 theatrical exile. While my main interest lays in the intersection between theatre and the Franco regime, my research also pays attention to each of these two axes separately. Firstly, I have addressed theatre under totalitarianism trans-nationally and comparatively, paying attenton to how dictatorships impact theatre practice worldwide, especially in the Hispanic world. Secondly, I am currently paying particular attention to cultural and literary production beyond theatre under the Franco regime. This latter line of research is mostly conducted along with my colleague Fernando Larraz (Universidad de Alcalá), with whom, among other initiatives, I organise the international conference Literatura y Franquismo, held every two years.
My research has taken the form of 2 authored books, 2 edited volumes, 4 co-edited volumes, 3 edited journal issues, 3 edited plays and about 40 journal articles and book chapters. These publications include highly-indexed journals (Revista de Literatura, Estreno, Modern Language Review, Revista Chilena de Literatura, Bulletin of Hispanic Studies, Arbor and Neophilologus, inter alia) and prestigious publishers (Routledge, Tamesis, Arco Libros, Renacimiento) both in Spain and beyond. In addition to publishing, I have amply disseminated the outcomes of my research in multiple conferences and through several invited lectures and keynote addresses. I have also participated in 8 competitively-awarded funded research projects and am active member of various research groups in Spain and abroad, including ITEM (Instituto del Teatro de Madrid). Further to this, I am committed to academic exchange and created BETA. Asociación de Jóvenes Doctores en Hispanismo (http://asociacionbeta.com/), a global network for post-docs in Hispanic Studies I was president of for almost 7 years. I was member of the editorial board of 452ºF. Journal of Literary Theory and Comparative Literature (www.452f.com) until 2020 and am currently secretary of Talía. Revista de Estudios Teatrales.
less
InterestsView All (7)
Uploads
Authored Books by Diego Santos Sánchez
Arrabal’s questioning of how memory plays part in the creative process determines a twofold strategy of neg(oti)ated narration. On the one hand, concrete plays deny links with recognizable narrative patterns altogether; on the other, an abstract theatre still negotiates a minimized, anything but straightforward narration. Both kinds of plays take narration to its limits, questioning the very notion of theatrical mimesis.
The rules of chance and the way in which they arrange the materials recalled by memory into a rigorous action are another concern of Arrabal’s theatre. An accurate description of the plays’ main patterns (cyclical, symmetric, etc.) is provided and a general definition of panic action established.
Once both the narrative and action frames have been set forth, the plays are peopled with four types of stage elements: subjects, objects, frames and words. Confusion, which Arrabal opposes to perfection, is the principle behind his filling up the stage. The Spanish word confusión allows the author a con-fusión reading: the stage elements melt (fusión) with (con) one another onstage as they implement their imperfection, ie, their utterly anti-realistic idiosyncrasy. This imperfection is displayed in various ways: the subject becomes split, the object autonomous, the spatio-temporal frame suspended and the word is stretched to its very boundaries.
This characterization opposes panic plays’ deeply experimental and avant-garde nature against the author’s previous naïve as well as later political-committed dramaturgies. It also demonstrates the Panic Theatre’s consistency as a theatrical language. It is thoroughly characterized as an organic array of plays, carrying out a great formal experimentation in unprecedented ways. The study helps to place Arrabal’s work amongst the greatest theatre written in 20th century Spain.
Edited Books by Diego Santos Sánchez
Journal Issues by Diego Santos Sánchez
452ºF’s tenth issue aims at creating a space for discussion and reflection on the links between theatre and dictatorship. There were indeed many societies that suffered some kind of dictatorial regime during the 20th century and theatre proved to be a useful tool in all of them. As opposed to other genres, theatre’s potential lays in its immediacy and collectivity – theatre is based on the direct, unmediated transmission of a message to a group of people, created, as such, for the sole purpose of receiving it. This idiosyncrasy of theatre allows a politicization of audiences to a greater degree than other genres do. Aware of that, both dictatorial regimes and their opponents have taken advantage of theatre, either to impose obedience or to promote dissention under totalitarian contexts. The contributors of this issue have focused on theatre’s uses for contestation to a broad and representative array of dictatorial regimes.
Literary Editions by Diego Santos Sánchez
Journal Articles by Diego Santos Sánchez
However, this theatrical apparatus entails a great contradiction: censorship, one of its institutions, is to a large degree responsible for the failure of the National-Catholic theatrical canon. An in-depth study of some of these plays’ processes sheds light on how censorship hampered texts praising Franco and his new regime on their way to the stages. The impact of censorship in turn explains why the theatrical discourse of la España eterna failed and theatrical activity resumed pre-war trends.
Si bien ambas gozaron de un gran éxito y la calidad de sus obras fue duramente juzgada por la censura, la manera en que esta catalogó a una y otra es notablemente distinta. Millán Astray fue una autora afín al régimen y en buena medida venerada por este, por lo que los informes censores loan su buena voluntad. Sin embargo, Maura presenta una moral menos amable e introduce en sus obras el adulterio, planteando desafíos de mayor índole y buscando estrategias para llevar un nuevo discurso a escena. La dureza de la censura contra ella fue excepcional, machista e hiriente, generando un nuevo discurso que sugería la existencia de temas que la mujer, en tanto que tal, no debía tratar.
Arrabal’s questioning of how memory plays part in the creative process determines a twofold strategy of neg(oti)ated narration. On the one hand, concrete plays deny links with recognizable narrative patterns altogether; on the other, an abstract theatre still negotiates a minimized, anything but straightforward narration. Both kinds of plays take narration to its limits, questioning the very notion of theatrical mimesis.
The rules of chance and the way in which they arrange the materials recalled by memory into a rigorous action are another concern of Arrabal’s theatre. An accurate description of the plays’ main patterns (cyclical, symmetric, etc.) is provided and a general definition of panic action established.
Once both the narrative and action frames have been set forth, the plays are peopled with four types of stage elements: subjects, objects, frames and words. Confusion, which Arrabal opposes to perfection, is the principle behind his filling up the stage. The Spanish word confusión allows the author a con-fusión reading: the stage elements melt (fusión) with (con) one another onstage as they implement their imperfection, ie, their utterly anti-realistic idiosyncrasy. This imperfection is displayed in various ways: the subject becomes split, the object autonomous, the spatio-temporal frame suspended and the word is stretched to its very boundaries.
This characterization opposes panic plays’ deeply experimental and avant-garde nature against the author’s previous naïve as well as later political-committed dramaturgies. It also demonstrates the Panic Theatre’s consistency as a theatrical language. It is thoroughly characterized as an organic array of plays, carrying out a great formal experimentation in unprecedented ways. The study helps to place Arrabal’s work amongst the greatest theatre written in 20th century Spain.
452ºF’s tenth issue aims at creating a space for discussion and reflection on the links between theatre and dictatorship. There were indeed many societies that suffered some kind of dictatorial regime during the 20th century and theatre proved to be a useful tool in all of them. As opposed to other genres, theatre’s potential lays in its immediacy and collectivity – theatre is based on the direct, unmediated transmission of a message to a group of people, created, as such, for the sole purpose of receiving it. This idiosyncrasy of theatre allows a politicization of audiences to a greater degree than other genres do. Aware of that, both dictatorial regimes and their opponents have taken advantage of theatre, either to impose obedience or to promote dissention under totalitarian contexts. The contributors of this issue have focused on theatre’s uses for contestation to a broad and representative array of dictatorial regimes.
However, this theatrical apparatus entails a great contradiction: censorship, one of its institutions, is to a large degree responsible for the failure of the National-Catholic theatrical canon. An in-depth study of some of these plays’ processes sheds light on how censorship hampered texts praising Franco and his new regime on their way to the stages. The impact of censorship in turn explains why the theatrical discourse of la España eterna failed and theatrical activity resumed pre-war trends.
Si bien ambas gozaron de un gran éxito y la calidad de sus obras fue duramente juzgada por la censura, la manera en que esta catalogó a una y otra es notablemente distinta. Millán Astray fue una autora afín al régimen y en buena medida venerada por este, por lo que los informes censores loan su buena voluntad. Sin embargo, Maura presenta una moral menos amable e introduce en sus obras el adulterio, planteando desafíos de mayor índole y buscando estrategias para llevar un nuevo discurso a escena. La dureza de la censura contra ella fue excepcional, machista e hiriente, generando un nuevo discurso que sugería la existencia de temas que la mujer, en tanto que tal, no debía tratar.