Where is the performance in Joseph Roach's "Culture and Performance"?
I’d like to ask for some help, both in sorting out an essay, and in answering the question, “What is performance theory for?” I’ve been struggling with Joseph Roach’s essay in Performativity and Performance . At first reading, it seemed to be a clear tracing of three funeral performances as examples of social memory. Stepping back from it, though, I feel like it wanders over lots of territory, and I’m having difficulty finding the main point he is arguing. I believe one of his main theses is that literature and orature are interrelated, “that these modes of communication have produced one another interactively over time” (45). Another thesis is that performance allows culture to change. I don’t see how these arguments are supported with the analysis of different funeral performances, though. The literature he refers to is the libretto of an opera (an obvious aesthetic performance form) or a newspaper. How is performance related to what has traditionally been considered literatu...
Erfan's presentation was helpful to me because of his generous use of examples that demonstrated ideas from Said. In particular, I was struck by the political nature of mapping. This reminds me of Cedric Robinson's discussions about the politics of mapping in Black Marxism. If I recall, he built that aspect of his work on Gramsci. Anyways, extending this ideo of cartography and Said's Egyptology, I ask how ethnography is an extension of imperialism, a kind of academic imperialism. There is a long history of white scholars doing ethnographic, and sometimes performance work in communities that can be done in similar ways as Said discussed. Such as, looking for knowledge to benefit the academy rather than the people in the study.
ReplyDeleteI also appreciated the offering of new examples and the explicit connection between Said and the examples. In terms of ethnography, I guess that inherent in the act of ethnography can be the Other-ing that Said describes. That is, what drives the desire to study a certain group? Is it a preconception of the group, first, as a group that is different from you or your own group, and second, as having something interesting to share? Probably every act of studying begins with a hypothesis or with something you expect to encounter or discover. Is it safe to say there is a risk of Orientalism there, in terms of how strongly you hold on to that expectation and how it structures the research?
DeleteI don't know much about ethnography, so I can't give specific examples that would make this more meaningful. But I have been reflecting on how Eugenio Barba and Odin Theater, one of my favorite groups, engage in this sort of activity. Barba skews the traditional distinction between Eastern and Western Theater, instead labeling two types of performers as North Pole and South Pole (13). Perhaps unusually, given the value usually given both to the Northern hemisphere and the North Pole, Barba uses the North Pole to stand for those theaters which have a codified tradition and the South Pole to stand for those forms more based on individual talent.
This classification system does challenge the image of the distant Orient, as Barba recognizes that North Pole traditions could include kabuki theatre, ballet, or corporeal mime. Also, much of Barba’s system is built on visiting, observing, and working with practitioners of different forms. However, as Misty asked, much of the purpose for this work is to integrate it into his European theater. And while he invites many performers to various international conferences, the power differential still exists. That is, it is easier for the Western performer to travel to the East than the other way around.
Barba, Eugenio (1995). The Paper Canoe: A Guide to Theatre Anthropology. Translated by Richard Fowler. London: Routledge.
I noticed something interesting in the way Erfan explained the “Men Against Fire” episode of Black Mirror. He said that, after a malfunction, the soldier “starts to see those roaches as human beings.” My interpretation of that episode, when I saw it, was that the “roaches” were actual people, and the programming was a filter that laid this non-human image on top of them. Erfan’s phrasing suggests a minor, but I think important, difference—that the non-human figures are the reality, and their human-like appearance is a malfunction of the implant.
DeleteWhy is this important? Because it seems to reinforce the idea that we extend compassion only to those who are like us. The shock of the episode is that the soldiers are killing humans, people practically identical to them. The morality of the situation is clear. The soldiers are evil because they are killing their own.
Wouldn’t it be more interesting, though, if the non-human roaches were the ones we were supposed to extend compassion to? While the episode seems to be making a point about ideology, it ends up reinforcing the Orientalist other-ing. (Perhaps this is the point Erfan was making by bringing it up, and I’m just getting it now.) That is, it’s not okay to harm those who are like you, but if you make them different, then it’s okay.
Obviously, this is one of the uses of Orientalism. It’s okay to exploit certain people because they are not us. They are irrational, mysterious, unenlightened, so they are not really humans. However, what is the alternative? The basis of most of the diversity programs I witnessed in school was “We’re more alike than we are different.” Which means, when we see how somebody is actually quite different from us, we can’t deal with it. Unless we can see ourselves there. Said refers to this when he explains how the Orient, and Islam specifically, were made less threatening by being understood as a version of the familiar thing.
In either case, whether the Oriental is my opposite or a closer version of me, I remain the standard of measurement. I don’t have to approach the Other directly, just as, in all those diversity assemblies, we continued to talk about people who we saw as different without their presence. So when my implant malfunctions, and I see, not a “roach”, but a human being, I am only referring to my own vision and understanding. When I react in fear, I am relying on the propaganda or programming I have received about “roaches” rather than any direct experience. But when I react to a human being with compassion, I am still relying on programming, on what I have been told about human beings.
Each definition that Erfan presented about "oriental" struck me as power at play. By indicating that each definition operates in discourse allowed me to understand how one creates imaginary constructions to legitimize the actions of orientalism. The reproduced images of the Middle East identities are good/bad; victim/terrorist and teaches us how language performs identity through the creation of a narrative. This is always a political performance because essentially the language dehumanizes the people while the actions dehumanize a person. It is useful to find a language that performs the "ness" of reclaiming identity. To imply that this does not deal with Muslims, Islams, and Arabs does nothing to our understanding of the problematic ways these people view themselves in the world. The most interesting thing is based on the acquisition and similarity of producing a critique or and exchange that is a substitute for self-reflection that modern discourse promotes power.
ReplyDeletelaura
I really enjoyed Erfan's presentation this week. Academic imperialism is something that I notice often in this field and, as we move on to more readings critiquing performance as a tool for empowerment as well as oppression, I want to be more conscious of how identities recreated within performance can be oppressive and a reinforcement of hegemonic ideologies. I want to be conscious of this in my own performances, mainly. As Misty mentioned above, I also really appreciated the maps as an example. Just the shapes, sizes, and placements of countries on maps can help to reinforce these ideas. Thank you for sharing your thoughts and ideas with us, Erfan!
ReplyDelete