Text 1: Shannon
Jackson, “Professing Performance: Theatre in the Academy from Philology to
Performativity”
Text 2: W. B.
Worthen, “Antigone’s Bones”
Ellen begins by
explaining that the two authors we’re discussing today were, at one point,
married. She and Amy agree that such
information, while intriguing, is not necessary pre-knowledge for the course.
Students are not expected to know such information, or to be familiar with the
authors we will read, in order to participate in the class.
Ellen begins the
conversation by asking about the audience for the articles.
Whitney muses
that Jackson seems to be addressing
everyone. She strips performance of all complexities and nuances – defines and
then undercuts the definition. She wonders if there is an audience at all.
Jamie praises Jackson’s language. It’s not complex/jargony.
She also appreciates the history Jackson offered,
as compared to Worthen’s style, where
she felt like an outsider to the conversation.
Courtney says
that Jackson is clearly addressing an
academic audience – that she is finger-wagging at the way we construct/destroy
fields.
Dorothy agrees and says that the
audience seems to be for academics who may use the word “performativity” in
their writing. However, she wonders about the absence of a discussion of music.
Andrea says that this is for academics in multiple departments –
that Jackson creates a composite
view.
Derek and Cody discuss
how the article is similar to readings in Derek’s
cultural studies course in its fluidity. Cody says that the article is interesting and wonders if
performances studies is synonymous with cultural/rhetoric studies. They are
using the same text/theorists.
Jenna wonders if
that’s why there are so many origin stories? To keep us centered and provide a
foundation.
*
Amy asks why the
class thinks Jackson started her article with a
conversational/dramatic scene?
Natalie wonders
if anyone has ever invested in any meaning of performance – especially those
alienated/confused by it. Are there some power plays going on in Jackson’s opening conversation?
Amy is curious about what various teams Natalie sees emerging? Natalie says that Jackson seems bashful in her performance in this opening scene –
she’s holding back, while the theatre person is trying to take on performative
studies as theatre.
Amy mentions that this highlights the dichotomy of practitioner vs.
theorist. She mentions how familiar the scene is to her personally – that it
sets up contested disciplines/terms and articulates the stakes. She says this
is often not a friendly conversation (between a theatre director and a
scholar). That you can hear the showdown music in the background.
Ellen considers the multiple dynamics at play, but she feels the
dog whistle in the article, especially because of her position as a theatre
scholar in a literary studies department. She knows how difficult it is to
bridge two disciplines. However, she reflects that Jackson’s level of solipsism implies that she must be of a senior
academic rank.
Amy knows this performance from her own experience with a colleague
who called herself a “worker bee.” She says that the narrative of doing or
talking can be very damaging, but one can’t run from it. This conflict is made
explicit in Jackson’s article,
especially the way she talks about the establishing of identities.
*
Ellen turns the
conversation to positive reactions to Jackson’s
article.
Jess appreciated
the accessibility and definition of performativity, but she wonders how all
this talk informs what we do? This is followed by a discussion on the
definition of epistemology, which Ellen then
defines as the science or means of study of a field of study. She refers the class
to the Johns Hopkins Encyclopedia of
Terms and the OED when running
into academic jargon.
Amy follows up on Jess’ question,
and Dorothy says that she had
similar experiences to Jackson’s when
working with an ethnomusicologist – there was a strict division of disciplines.
In music, “we use the word ‘performance’ like it was free,” she said. So she
particularly appreciated Jackson’s interesting
theoretical/interdisciplinary look at it.
Ellen agrees. The article calls us out – shows us our origins. It can
be an opportunity or a closing conversation. It makes us notice our maneuvers.
She appreciates Jackson’s overview
and thinks the article would be a good ingredient for a department meeting.
*
At the same time, Ellen
moves the conversation on to Worthen’s
article, and Amy asks if there
are any questions about “Antigone’s Bones.”
Courtney considers
the archive vs. repertoires dichotomy that Worthen
outlines, especially on p. 13 – his discussion of the antitextualism of
performance studies. If we’re antitextual, what are we now?
Jennifer says that he seems to be offering methods to address that
problem on p. 19, but she’s not sure if they are sufficient.
To Ellen, Worthen is asking to play in the
performative studies field, to undo the binaries Jackson set up (that there is a line in the sand between
theatre/performative studies that neglects something essential in reading of
dramatic texts). He is saying that there are ways of including us all: everyone
who studies in theatre and those in lit. Of course, Ellen points out, he could have included a few more women who do
this interdisciplinary work in his article, but he chose four men.
Andrea points out
that he doesn’t address film in his article, which Ellen mentions is another great divide in academia: film vs.
theatre.
*
Amy turns the
conversation into a discussion of whether Worthen’s
evocative title is made clear in the piece. Derek is unclear on some of its uses. While it’s straightforward
on, for example, page 12, it then becomes muddled.
Ellen says that Worthen is
discussing extrapolation – that “Antigone’s bones” are standing in for many
meanings, and he’s trying to describe an unrealistic dichotomy of performance
vs. text, which is a fallacy. As Foucault would say, archives are very shaky. She
asks if anyone wants to argue about what the bones are standing in for?
Derek interprets the bones as the dry, dead pages of text.
Ellen says that yes, there is a dryness to text alone – a sense of
it forever enduring unchanged – but that idea of endurance is a misperception.
It’s significant that Worthen’s most
recent book addressed this fallacy – it was about text and performance.
Amy comments on what tends to be lost – as Jackson would say – a sense of what’s left out in history. If you
think only in “sledgehammer dichotomies” (Worthen
term) – you lose much of this – you see it as stable, but it’s not. And
this can promote a fight.
Jennifer is
confused about Worthen’s quote on
page 15. While he seems to want to bring the fields into conversation everywhere
else, here he is implying that they should have separate methods and
vocabularies.
Natalie reasons that this may be for practicality – each field
needs its own language to continue to exist.
Sarah reflects on her own experience with a professor who offered
her little advice and then praised her choice of theatre. She was told that
methodologies change, but disciplines adapt and evolve. By forcing performative
studies into interdisciplinarity, this forces theatre into the conversation.
Ellen says that one must always be doing two things at once. The
terms are contentious, but the fields must have something in common in order to
talk. Drama may serve as an overlap between theatre and literature, but it must
be dealt with uniquely and openly. Worthen
seems most tied to Goldman, a literary theorist. He seems somewhat
retrogressive (it was possible for Goldman, who practiced in an earlier era, to
make performative claims). Today, lit studies is very attentive to bodily
considerations. New fields really change the way we work, and as these
categories are changing, they may also be lessening.
Amy true – one problem is, the categories still exist, but you
often don’t know where they are until you’ve overstepped them. Jackson undoes this – she recognizes the
differences, but she also acknowledges the shared ground.
Amy and Ellen want
the students to pull out 2-3 quotes and use them in their blogs-in-process, one
they are up and running.
No comments:
Post a Comment