The benefits of an ethnographic approach to performance can be myriad. It can give outsiders a sense for what goes on within a particular culture, and for me, the performance methods and modes of a culture tell me more about the people who inhabit that sphere than anything else. Someone who gives outsiders the words to describe the inside experience can be very helpful to other scholars, and to others in general.
Kealiinohomoku's article made an excellent point in that there is no universality, there is no sole representative of a particular art form. The notion that Shakespeare is universal and it comes from Everywhere is nonsense. It is a Eurocentric mindset, one that limits discourse by pushing our sameness to the forefront. I feel that an ethnographic approach could help avoid some of the pitfalls inherent in scholarship, as long as it was undertaken with a large amount of self-awareness, and respect for other cultures.
Conquergood brought up the notion of ethnographic fieldwork "privileging the body", and radical empiricism, which is informed by the subjective experience of the ethnographer, thinning or blurring the line between the studied and the studying. The experiences of the scholar are no longer something to shy away from; the fact that scholars are different from those they study is not a liability. It implies that everyone can contribute meaningfully to an actual dialogue or conversation about a topic rather than privileging certain kinds of people as being "experts" by virtue of their background, experience, or what have you.
This is the sense I got from the two articles. Though I see some drawbacks to using an ethnographic approach to performance, I personally am in favor of recognizing the inherent differences in us all rather than flattening them in an attempt to prove everyone/everything universal.
No comments:
Post a Comment