Why Performance Theory Needs Philosophy

7/30/2019 Why Performance Theory Needs Philosophy

1/6

Fal l 2001 14 9

Why Performance Theory Needs Phi losophyDavid Z. Sal t z

A confess ion: s ince the beginning of my profess ional career as a scholar , Ihave led a double l i fe . My PhD and academic appointments have been in thea tre .I regular ly part ic ipa te in conferences for organiza t ions such as ATHE , AST R, andPerform ance Studies Interna t ional , and I publ ish much of my w or k in books andjourn als d i rec ted primari ly towar d thea tre and performance scholars , such as JDTC.Yet I have a lso presented a number of papers a t meet ings of the Am erican Societyfor Aes the t ics and publ ished a ser ies of essays in tha t organiza t ion 's journal , theJournal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism. The ASA and the readership of JAACcons is t a lmos t ent i re ly of peop le who work in Ame rican phi lo sop hy departments .Mo reove r, most , though n ot all , of these philosophers fall squa rely w ithin the Anglo -American "analyt ic" t radi t ionone of the few major theore t ica l paradigms a lmos tent i re ly absent f rom the discou rse of contemporary thea tre and performance theoryand cr i t ic ism.

In announ cing m y affinity towa rd analytic philosophy to an audience consistingmos t ly of thea tre and perform ance scholars , I fee l a b i t l ike I am ou t ing myself. Iget a simila r feeling wh en , after I deliver a talk at an aesthetic s conf erenc e, someoneexpresses surprise upon d iscovering tha t I am from a thea tr e departm ent ; I amalways a bi t embarrassed and, a t the same t ime, proud tha t I have "passed."

No rm s a n d Ex p ecta t i o n sOver the years , I have become accus tomed to adopt ing qui te d i fferent ways

of speaking and wri t ing depending on whether my audience cons is ts of thea trescholars or phi losophers . I have in terna l ized the s tandards of my two worlds ofdiscour se . St i l l, whic heve r com mun ity I am address ing, I a lw ays regard myselfprimarily as a "theorist," as opposed, say, to being a critic or historian. Indeed, Ith ink of my work for thea tre scholars and for phi losophers as two aspects of as ingle projec t . The dual i ty of my ident i ty as a theoris t u l t imate ly serves me verywel l . Each community compels me to be r igorous in very different ways .

The pap ers I prod uce for thea tre conferences and jou rn als typica l ly lavishmu ch m ore a t tent ion on spec if ic dramat ic texts or per form anc es than papers Iproduce for phi losophers . In teres t ingly , these papers a lso tend to conta in manymore allusions to, and quotes from,* other theorists . By contrast, the papers I writefor phi losophica l audien ces focus in mu ch grea ter depth on the or igina l a rgumentthat I am develo ping. In fact, quite often a hypothetical exa mp le wh at philosophers


2/6

15 0 Journ al o f Dr am atic Theor y and Crit ic ismcall a " thought experiment" wil l serve my purpo ses jus t as e ffec t ive ly as anexample from an ac tua l p lay or performance .

In a nutshell, my papers for theatre scholars use theory to elucidate specificcases . The emphasis is on the critical, cultural and historical applications andimplications of a theoretical position. My papers for philosophers, on the otherhand, focus on the theoretical position itself. I devote the bulk of my energy tobuilding the strongest possible case for the position th at I am adv ocatin g an d againstalternate positions. On e of the most crucial an d difficult parts o f this task is s implyarticulating all the positions involved as clearly and unambiguously as possible,and identifying the philosophical presuppositions that underlie those positions.The examples I adduce from particular plays and perfo rman ce serve as case studies,not as ends unto themselves .

From my own perspect ive , these different em phases c omp lemen t eac h othervery wel l . I f ind myself f leshing out the in t rodu ct ion and con clu s ion of myarguments for thea tre scholars , but rushing through the argum ents them selves in asentence or two. For phi losophers I do exact ly the oppo s i te . I f I we re to present anAST R paper a t the American Socie ty for Aes the t ics , I suspect tha t the pa per wouldstrike most philosop hers in the audienc e as lacking in substa nce. Bu t the same, Isuspect, would be t rue i f I presented an ASA paper a t AS TR . The re spo nse of manyphi losophers to the AS TR paper would be : "You'v e mad e some int r igu ing c la ims ,but why should I believe you, or, for that matter, the various other theorists youquote wi th approval? Prove it\" On the other hand, the response of many thea trescholars to an ASA paper would be : "Why should I care about any of this hairsplitt ing analysis? Get to the point already!"

A B u m R a pThe " theory" prac t iced by most Am erican phi losop hers is worlds apart f rom

he "theory" practiced by most scholars in Am erican theatre an d perfor ma nce studiesdepartments. That is to say, the two groups of theorists occup y two d istinct universesof discourse. There is very lit t le overlap between the theoretical texts upon whichthese theorists draw and to which they respond. Of course, there are a few crossover figures, such as J .L. Austin and, to a lesser extent, Wittgenstein. Virtuallynever , however , wi l l thea tre or performance theory refer to seminal phi losopherssuch as Wil la rd Quine , Hi lary Putman, Dona ld Davids on or Winfi rd Sel la rs .

Even more surprising, theatre and perform ance scholars rema in alm ost entirelyoblivious to luminaries in the analytic tradition of philosophical aesthetics, manyof whom have put forth theories with clear application to theatre, such as RichardW o l l h e i m , N e l s o n G o o d m a n , J e r ro l d L e v i n s o n , J o s e p h M a r g o l i s , N i c h o l a sWolterstorff, Kend all Walton, and even Noel Car roll. (A partial exc ept ion is ArthurDanto, who since he has started slumming as an art critic has gained substantialrecogni t ion outs ide of the world of phi losophy, though primari ly am on g visua l ar t


3/6

Fal l 2001 15 1theoris ts ra ther than performance theoris ts . )

American thea tre and performance theoris ts a re not s imply unaware of thework be ing done by Anglo-American phi losophers . They tend to reac t to the veryidea of ana lyt ic phi loso phy with dis tas te . For some t ime, i t has be en v ery uncool toadmit tha t one is working in the analyt ic t radi t ion. Scholars in American thea treand performance s tudies departments a re fa r more comfortable looking to thecont inent for phi losophica l ins ight and inspira t ion than to work be ing done byphi losophers on the ir very own campuses .

Wh y? No do ubt, a large part of the answer derives from th e institutional politicsof the Am erican u niversity, and to the alliances that have fo rm ed b etw een disciplinessuch as thea tre and, for exam ple , compara t ive l i te ra ture . Th is cul tu ra l h is tory ofAm erican thea tre scholar ship is a r ipe area for inves t iga t io n, bu t I wi l l not pursuethat issue here.

The divide goes deeper than ins ti tu t ional pol i t ics . M an y pe rform ance theoris tshave legitimate qualms about the nature of the work analytic philosophers undertake.They th ink of the s ty le of ana lyt ic phi losophy as overly technica l , dry and boring,a nd the a rgume n t s the ms e lve s a s ove r ly " pos i t iv i s t i c " a nd a h i s to r i c a l . The s econcerns are not ent i re ly unfounded, but they are based on part ia l and most lyoutda ted impress ions .

The varie ty of the work be ing conducted today under the genera l rubric ofanalyt ic phi losophy is t ru ly remarkable , much grea ter even than the t remendousdivers i ty of sty le and approa ch on e f inds in thea tre and perf or m an ce theory. A lotof tha t work rea l ly is boring (as , for tha t mat te r , i s mu ch pe rfo rm an ce theory). Butno theoris t i s more engaging than, for example , the respected phi losopher TedCohen , whose recent bo ok on the phi losophy o f jok es is a r io t . Som e analyticphi losophers s t i l l do reduce complex ideas to the technica l language of symbol icl o g i c . But tha t approach is much less common in the phi losophy of a r t than someother a reas , and the phi losoph ers wh o have a part icular ly s t rong pench ant for dryand technica l ja rg on often ge t a hard t ime from those wh o do not .

Stanley Cavel l i s a phi loso pher wi th a dense , l i te ra te s ty le ak in to HerbertBl au ' s . Today, the accusa t ion of "pos i t iv ism" is a lmos t as dam ni ng within the worldof Anglo-A merican phi loso phy as it i s in performance theor y. The A nglo-Am ericantradi t ion underwent a " l inguis t ic turn ," and more recent ly a "cul tura l turn ," muchas the cont inenta l t radi t ion did , and the cr i t ique of ahis tor ic ism entered thep h i l o s o p h i c a l d i s c o u r s e e v e n e a r l i e r t h a n t h e d i s c o u r s e o f t h e a t r e t h e o ry .Phi losophers tend not to f lock towa rd any kind of unif ied par ty l ine , but mos tAmerican phi losophers today share an ins t inc tua l avers ion to essent ia l ism andahis tor ic ism. An analyt ic phi losopher such as Joseph Margol is s takes out pos i t ionson issues such as the ont olo gy of cultural entities and the relat ivi sm of interpretationtha t even many performance theoris ts would re jec t as too radica l .

Misconcept ions are especia l ly abundant concerning the f ie ld of phi losophica l


4/6

1 52 J o u rn a l o f Dra m a t i c Th eo r y a n d Cri t ic i smaes the t ics . Many performance theoris ts imagine tha t phi losophers of a r t preoccupythemselves wi th defining abs trac t not ions such as beauty and the subl ime, andonly take into account a classical canon of Western, white, male artis ts . To a largee x te n t , t ha t u s e d to be the c a s e ( though the re ha ve a lwa ys be e n impor t a n texcept ions)at a t ime when thea tre theory was charac ter ized by s imilar b iasesand limitations, that is , through approximately the late 1960s. But changing culturalt ides break on the shores of Am erican ph i losophy de partm ents m uch as they do inthe rest of the academy. To be sure, articles in the Journal of Aesthetics and ArtCriticism still refer to Beeth oven , but also to jaz z an d rock; to Verm eer, but also toJeff Koons and Martha Stewart .

Ph i l o so p h y a s Di a l o g u eWhat, then, is analytic philosophy? Naturally, analytic philosophers themselves

have reflected on that question and proposed a range of different answers. Thequestion is , after all , a fundamentally philosophical one. Qualities that philosophersthemselves of ten emph as ize are c la r ity and r igor of a rgument , and deep and pa t ientprobing of concepts and presuppos i t ions . Most genera l ly , however , the qual i ty tha tmakes the discipline particularly attractive to me is its peculiarly dialogic, onemight even say dramatic, methodology.

Analyt ic phi losophy beg an as re jec tion of an Hegel ian approach to theory, anapproach tha t s t i l l dominates cont inenta l phi losophy. One of the bas ic impulsesunderlying the analytic tradition is a healthy suspicion of grand unifying theoriesand sweeping metaphys ica l s ta tements . This impulse has much in common withwhat w ould only much la te r be te rmed pos tmo dernism , a t leas t in Lyotard 's senseof the postm odern: it is predicated on a profound skepticism to ward m eta na rratives .

Analyt ic phi losophers tend to a rgue in short , h ighly focused spurts . Onephi losopher wi l l advance a propos i t ion. Another wi l l p ick tha t propos i t ion apartand either revise and refine it , or propose a radically different proposition in itss tead. The f i rs t phi losopher may then rebut the analys is of the second, or mayaccept the counter-arguments and go fur ther in the new direc t ion, or accept thecounter-arguments but re jec t the conclus ions the second phi losopher drew fromthose counter a rguments and propose ye t another solut ion. A thi rd phi losop hermig ht then joi n in and argue that the entire debate rests on faulty prem ises, a ndpropose an entirely new approach to the topic.

Theoris ts in performan ce and thea tre tend to regard cr i t ic isms as a t tacks . B ycontras t , ana lyt ic phi losophers tend to welcome t renchant , de ta i led cr i t ic isms ofthe ir pos i t ions . The phi losophers wi th whom you disagree are of ten much moreuseful to you than those with whom you agree , and the more powerful and cog entan argument is in opposition to your view, the more helpful that argument is inhe lp ing yo u to c la r i fy a nd re f ine your own pos i t ion . I f o the r ph i lo s oph e rsimm edia te ly and uncondi t ional ly accept a phi losophica l a rg umen t , tha t a rgu ment


5/6

i s probably t r iv ia l and m ake s no s ignif icant con tr ibut ion to the discourse . Themost va luable works of phi losophy are those tha t cha l lenge other phi losophers torespon d even i f the respon se is d iametr ica l ly opp osed to the argument tha tprovoked it .

Individual works of ana lyt ic phi losophy typica l ly assume a dramat ic forminternally as we ll. A typ ical app roac h is for a philo soph er to begi n by formulatinga pos i t ion and then to respon d with counter-argum ents to tha t propo sa l . The bestphi losophy does not rush to conclus ionswhich can be very frus t ra t ing for non-phi losophers wh o are not acc l im ated to the game. Moreover , a f te r a l l of the twis tsand turns of a rgum ent , the conc lus ion tha t emerges ma y not seem very impress ivein and of itself. I t might seem intui t ive and obvious . The s ignif icance of manyphi losophica l pos i t ions only becomes c lear when you put tha t pos i t ion in contextof the discourse . Often the pos i t ion ul t imate ly esp oused mat ters less than the onesre jec ted a long the way. Phi losophica l a rguments of ten reveal propos i t ions with adeep intuitive appeal to be deeply flawed or incoherent, or to have unexpected andunwe lc ome impl i c a t ions .Theory as prac t iced in thea tre and performance scholarship , by contras t, tendsto put great s tock in the apparent profundity of conclusions, and much less stock inthe quality of the argu men ts advan ced in support of those con clusion s. Consequently,counter- in tui t ive conclus ions are highly seduct ive . Paradox, in part icular , i s apos i t ive vir tue in much pe rform ance theory. An argum ent tha t resul ts in a paradoxis not rejected as inc ohe rent bu t celebrated as profoun d. " X both is and is not Y" isa deeply sa t is fying form ula t ion. For examp le , Richard S ched uler 's descript ion ofthe actor's identity in performance as combining the "not I" and the "not not I" hasbecome a favori te formula among performance theoris ts for explaining the statusof ac t ing. While I agree tha t Scheduler 's formula t ion is important and useful , Iwould suggest that its value lies precisely in the way it identifies a conceptualroadblock in our current th inking about the ac tor 's ident i ty , and points to afundamenta l i s sue in perform ance theory tha t c r ies out for r igorous phi losophica lin terrogat ion. Ana lyt ic phi lo soph ers seek out paradoxes in order to reveal a logicalflaw in an argum ent, or, even mo re usefully, to identify a knotty con ceptual problemin need of in tens ive phi losophica l scrut iny; for example , a landmark moment inthe ear ly his tory of ana lyt ic phi losophy was Russe l l ' s reve la t ion of a paradox inFrege 's foundat ion of mathemat ics .

" Us i n g " Th eo ry v ersu s " ' Do in g " Th eo ryT h e d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n t h e t h e o r y p r o d u c e d b y p h i l o s o p h e r s a n d b y

performance theor is ts runs muc h deeper than the ques t ion of which other theoris tsone re a ds a nd c i t e s . I t e x te nds be yond the d i s t inc t ion be twe e n a na ly t i c a ndcontinental philosophy, a distinction that in any case is far less decisive than it isof ten supposed to be . (An analyt ic phi losopher wi l l of ten have more in common


6/6

15 4 J o u rn a l o f Dra m a t i c Th eo ry a n d Cri t i c ismwith cer ta in cont inenta l phi losophers than cer ta in other ana lyt ic phi losoph ers .) Ona very genera l leve l , phi losophers and performance theoris ts tend to conceive ofthe theore t ica l enterprise in very different ways . Performance theoris ts typica l lyapply theories developed by scholars in other d isc ipl ines , such as phi losophy. Inthe halls betwe en sessions of an AS TR or ATH E conferen ce o ne migh t hear theoristsasking one another (as a prom inent performance scholar recent ly asked me ): "wh oare you using these days?" "Judi th But ler ," might come the reply; " I 'm looking a tthe performat ivi ty of e thnic i ty in rea li ty te levis ion. And you? Are yo u s t i l l workin gwi th B a udr i l l a rd? " " No , I ' ve move d be yond h im. La te ly I 've s t a r t e d us ingB ourd ie u ."

All too often in perfo rma nce and theatre theory, we argu e by citation. T heoriesare collages constructed from quotes and ideas extracted from o ther t ex ts . If someonewe respect has publ ished a theore t ica l asser t ion tha t sounds go od an d supports ourown pos i t ion, we uncri t ica l ly adopt and apply the asser t ion. Too man y argume ntsin thea tre and performa nce theory s take the ir va l id i ty on phrases such as : "as so-and-so has demons tra ted/ taught us / revealed. . . ." Because performance theory veryrare ly advances or igina l a rguments in support of the phi losophica l pr inc iples i tadopts indeed, it too rarely even rehearses the arguments offered by the theoristswho original ly advanced those pos i t ion s we are often mere ly theore t ica l parasi tes :the flow of theoretical discourse goes almost exclusively into performance theory,and very rarely does it come out again to influence other disciplines.

It is t ime for performance and theatre theorists to emerge from the shadowsand become ful l f ledged players in the in terdisc ipl inary drama of theore t ica ldiscourse. To do so, however, w e must finally tak e full respon sibility for the positionswe s take out and the theore t ica l assumptions upon which those pos i t ions arecons truc ted.

Documents

Why Performance Theory Needs Philosophy