DescriptionHow can a work of art be politically efficient without being militant? Vinaver's answer to this question, formulated at the end of the 1940s, is unusual: the work will be political through its own materiality; its ideas will be immanent to the writing itself. But the playwright does not leave it at that and suggests that the true question can to be rephrased in even simpler terms: "how can a work of art be politically efficient?" ("militant" works of art can't be said to be really efficient, and if they are for a while, their action does not last for very long). My work has therefore been to examine the materiality of Vinaver's work. Its main principle is that of collage (juxtapositions and non-intentionality). A whole body of archives had to be closely looked at. And yet, why did Vinaver choose theater, and why did he stand by that choice? Specifically because, as a genre, theater allows the voice and the ideas of the author to be subdued. For 11 September 2001, Vinaver's last play, he no longer invented anything anymore but limited his work to cutting and pasting ; the author disappears behind the composer. This play is essential to the whole understanding of Vinaver's poetics -- this is where we find more collages and more poetry, more of the real and more of the ritual (the efficiency of his theater is notably expressed through the creation of a community, or a "society against the State"). The fact that the four comprehensive studies of his work (Ubersfeld, Elstob, Bradby et Gobler-Lingens) were published before 2001 was decisive in deciding to start and complete this PhD thesis.