Waiting For Lefty Play Analysis

Theatre, throughout history, has been used as an implement to stimulate social change. Though, one may wonder: how can a simple play spark social change? “Waiting for Lefty,” a Great Depression-Era American play about labor strikers confronting the corruption of the United States government and unions, uses various techniques to trigger social commotion. Among these are the use of agitprop, defined as “agitative propaganda” and audience participation. In sum, “Waiting for Lefty” stimulates social change by strategically implementing agitprop and audience participation, and it does so effectively.
To begin, agitprop, an artistic Russian tactic where some artist would purposefully aggravate their audience to take action on a given subject, is

used towards the end of “Waiting for Lefty.” As evidence, throughout the entire play, we see the struggle of the American people: we see Miller, a lab assistant due to work under a great chemist, being bribed to spy upon the same great chemist (13-17); we see Florence and Sid, a young couple, break apart because of Sid’s inability to find a good paying job (17-23). Essentially, throughout the play, we see the great struggle of the Depression Era’s Americans. And what do these suffering people get at the end of the play? They get nothing. In fact, the play ends with the beginning of a large strike (31). The play ends not with the fruits of labor, but, rather, with labor itself.
As said above, this is all evidence of agitprop usage.

The play’s ending agitates the audience because it is unfair: there is no catharsis to be had in such an abrupt ending. This feeling of aggravation must have been amplified at the time of “Waiting for Lefty’s” release. Let us then, for a second, imagine that a family man during the Great Depression is out of a job. He feels inadequate; he feels like his country has failed him; he feels like he has failed his family. Imagine, then, he goes to see “Waiting for Lefty” which is a play that, at least, somewhat represents his current situation. For him, the ending leaves no feeling of completeness. It only leaves a hunger for catharsis. What better way to feed this hunger than to take action oneself? Yet, while agitprop certainly seems to be implemented in the play to spark social change, let us turn our attention to another factor of this sparking: audience participation.
In “Waiting for Lefty,” during strike sequences in the script, actors are scattered throughout the audiences. Some actors leave the audience to go on stage, and some actors stay in the audience area yet still cry and shout. For example, a man from the audience yells at Clayton, a man paid by industrialists to deter the strike, to stop talking and sit down (23-24). Essentially, the play seems to simulate civil disobedience for the audience; the audience seems to be an active member of a striking ensemble! But, one might ask, what kind of effect would this participation really have on those

viewers?
Again, much of the audience, during the 1930s, could most-likely relate to the play in some way. It would make sense if this audience participation triggered the viewers to want social change because they were tired of having little to no money; they were tired of letting down their families; they were tired of working for so little money. To be in a crowd of people who are loudly fighting labor injustices should be inspiring to anyone whom the topic relates to!
In conclusion, it seems likely that “Waiting for Lefty” used agitprop as well as audience participation. These tools, as exemplified above, can trigger social change. However, since the two implements were used in tandem, the craving of social change should have been greater. The majority of audience, feeling as if they were part of the play, should have been agitated by the end. Just like a pack of wild animals which are hungry and desperate, the audience must have felt the need to do whatever was necessary to better their situation, to better their lives, to better their nation.