In common parlance, âtheatricalityâ usually comes to connote one of two things.1 On the positive side, it is understood as a specific style of theatrical production, intimately related to the rise of the modernist theatre director by the early twentieth century. Ranging from the bodily to the political in orientation (Vsevolod Meyerhold, Bertolt Brecht), the value of such theatricalism has variously been located in the interrelation of different art forms (Richard Wagner) or in some perceived âessenceâ of theatre itself (Georg Fuchs, Nikolai Evreinov, Peter Brook). On the negative side, and much earlier, theatricality has also been equated with a derived realm of mere appearance , denying access to some allegedly prior, authentic, or essential domain of realityâbeginning with the eternal world of ideas first posited by the Greek philosopher Plato. Again, the method of this obstruction has varied from the grandiosely BaroqueâGianlorenzo Berniniâs mighty colonnade in St Peterâs Square, Rome is a case in pointâto the patently minimalistic: the canonical example is art critic Michael Friedâs 1967 diatribe against the âobjecthoodâ of âliteralistâ sculpture, precisely for its interrelation of different art forms and, worse still, its acknowledgement of its bodily spectators. In modern drama, the theatricality of playwrights like Samuel Beckett and Peter Shaffer has tended to be viewed in these more positive and more negative terms, respectively.
Zooming out, the more general category of âperformativityâ has been interpreted in equally conflicting ways.2 While its theatrical usage is not always so distinct from the historical emphases of avant-garde theatricalism âhighlighting theatreâs non-literary aspects such as liveness or embodimentâits more conceptual range has been delineated by such diverse philosophers as J.L. Austin, Jacques Derrida, and Judith Butler. Thus âperformativityâ is about bringing forth some change in the world or, conversely, about maintaining the status quo by means of reiterated naturalized practices. The latter range may (and will) be related to such normative âessencesâ as were earlier contrasted with the corrupting influence of theatricality . The former variety extends from a standard subject matter of dramatic presentation (agency and creativity, or their lack, e.g. in Shaffer and Beckett) to an extratheatrical sense of accomplishment: notably technological effectiveness or the efficacy of political activism. Even in these latter cases, however, the spectre of theatricality is never that far away. If a lineage of âfunctionalâ performativity is traced in domestic technology and architectureâfrom Le Corbusierâs âmachines for living inâ to the current ideal of the âsmart homeââit has been variously both helped and hindered by a degree of theatrical ornament. While non-violent protest may be even more effective if performed by clowns, dwarfs, or mere textiles, such agents also risk its invalidation by sheer antitheatrical suspicion.
This sums up some of the names, concepts, and practices covered in the set of writings that comprise this book. Beyond their apparent connotations with the performing arts, theatricality and performativity function as all-embracing metaphors of social existence, often with few ties to theatre as such. With the concept of âperformance,â in Marvin Carlsonâs canonical formulation, âthe metaphor of theatricality has moved out of the arts into almost every aspect of modern attempts to understand our condition and activities, into every branch of the human sciences.â3 Against this background, the central assumptions and arguments of this study are encapsulated in two fourfold hypotheses : the âbinaryâ fourfold already implied and to be elaborated, and the more âtexturalâ or âperspectivalâ one that the various writings work to develop in its stead.
Restating the first assumption with reference to some of the key scholars who have influenced this study, the distinctions of theatricality and performativity exceed by far their binary opposition in the wake of performance art and Performance Studies .4 Indeed, both concepts seem to fluctuate between conflicting values of novelty and normativity themselves: theatricality, between the essence of an art form and a more evasive cultural âvalue that must be either rejected or embraced,â as Martin Puchner has argued5; performativity, between effective doing and mere dissimulation. Briefly, the former field of tension evokes what has come to be known as the âantitheatrical prejudice,â dating back to the mobilization of catharsis and contamination in Plato and Aristotleâs early dispute over theatrical mimesis.6 With performativity, the default tensions pertain to skill and habit, or intention and conventionâits theatrical and deconstructive meanings âspanning the polaritiesâ of what Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick dubs âthe extroversion of the actor ⊠and the introversion of the signifier.â7 Most astutely, Jon McKenzie situates the paradox of performativity between its âsubversiveâ and ânormative valences,â in the heroic extroversion of (turn-of-the-century) Performance Studies and the docile incorporation of social discipline as theorized by Butler.8
The second assumptionâone that I only state here but will elaborate throughoutâis then that certain dramaturgical tendencies can be ascribed to both concepts that not only validate their distinction, but also relativize the binaries of the normative and the subversive (performativity), or the rejected and the embraced (theatricality). To divest them of a certain taken-for-grantedness, and to avoid the circularity of only defining them in terms of changing theatre or performance practices, this study theorizes theatricality and performativity relatively apart from individualistic notions of âactingâ or ârole-play,â say, in a language of more...