W. B.

Worthen
Drama, Performativity, and Performance*
Drama, Edim ve Performans
W. B. WORTHEN is professor of English and of theater and dance at the University of
California, Davis. His books include The Idea of the Actor (Princeton UP, 1984), Modern
Drama and the Rhetoric of Theater (U of California P, 1992), and Shakespeare and the
Authority of Performance (Cambridge UP, 1997). He is working on the performance of
national identities in contemporary drama and theater
THERE IS a conceptual crisis in drama studies, a crisis reflected -JL in the
ways different disciplinary styles approach questions about dramatic texts,
theatrical productions, and performance in general. Drama çalışmalarında kavramsal bir
kriz vardır, kriz farklı disiplin tarzları dramatik metinleri, tiyatro prodüksiyonları ve genel performansı
hakkında sorulan bir yaklaşım yollarla-JL yansıtıyordu.In the introduction to Performance
and Cultural Politics, Elin Diamond provides an exemplary account of
contemporary interest in performance and, in a gesture that has now become
reflex, suggests why this interest necessarily sidesteps the narrowly authorized
performances of dramatic theater. Performans ve Kültürel Siyaset Giriş bölümünde, Elin
Elmas, artık refleks haline gelmiş bir jest performans çağdaş ilgi ve örnek bir hesap verir bu ilginin
mutlaka dramatik tiyatro dar yetkili performansları sidesteps neden öneriyor.As a consequence,
she argues, of late-1960s experimental theater, the effect of theory on writing
about performance, and "poststructuralist theorizing (Barthes on Brecht, Derrida
on Artaud), performance came to be defined in opposition to theater structures
and conventions. Sonuç olarak, o geç 1960'ların deneysel, sonrasında, performansı hakkında
yazma teorisinin etkisi ve kuramı "postyapısalcı (Artaud üzerine Brecht, Derrida üzerine Barthes)
savunuyor, performans tiyatro yapıları ve muhalefet tanımlanabilir geldi sözleşmeler.In brief,
theater was charged with obeisance to the playwright's authority, with actors
disciplined to the referential task of representing fictional entities" (3). Kısacası,
tiyatro hayali varlıklar "(3) temsil başvuru göreve disiplinli aktörlerle, oyun yazarı yazarı ¬ ity için
saygı ile suçlandı. Although there has been an explosion of "performance discourse,
and its new theatrical partner, 'performativity,'" in many respects this expanding
investment in performance has "floated free of theater precincts" and of the
modes of performance and performance analysis associated with theater and
drama (2). Birçok bir patlama "performans dis ¬ ders ve yeni tiyatro ortağı 'performativity, '"
olmasına rağmen performans bu genişleyen yatırım vardır saygı "tiyatro bölgesine serbest yüzen" ve
ilgili performans ve performans analizi modları ile tiyatro ve drama (2). Indeed, performance
has been so "honored with dismantling textual authority, illusionism, and the
canonical actor" that it is questionable whether any frontier remains between
dramatic studies and performance studies (3). Gerçekten performans "ve metinsel otorite,
hokkabazlık sökülmesi ile onurlandırıldı ¬ cal aktör canoni" öyle oldu o şüpheli herhangi bir sınır
dramatik çalışmaları ve performans çalışmaları (3) arasında kalır mı. The reasons for this "ter-
minological expansion of performance and its drift away from theater" (12n22)
have to do in part with the different disciplinary investments of performance
studies and literary studies. Bunun nedenleri "performans ter ¬ minological genişleme ve uzak
tiyatroya olan drift" (12n22) performans çalışmaları ve edebi çalışmaların farklı disiplin yatırımları ile
kısmen yapmak zorundayız. Literary engagements with performativity tend to focus on
the performative function of language as represented in literary texts, and much
performance-oriented criticism of drama, for all its invocation of the theater,
similarly betrays a desire to locate the meanings of the stage in the contours of
the dramatic text. ¬ formativity başına sahip Edebiyat nişan, tiyatronun tüm çağrı için edebi
metinler temsil dilin performatif fonksiyonu ve drama çok performans odaklı eleştiri, odaklanma
eğilimindedir benzer sahne anlamlarını bulmak için bir arzu ihanetdramatik metnin kontür.
Performance studies has developed a vivid account of nondramatic, non-theatrical,
nonscripted, ceremonial, and everyday-life performances, performances that
appear to depart from the authority of texts. Performans çalışmaları, non-tiyatro,
nonscripted, tören ve günlük yaşam nondramatic performansları bir canlı hesap geliştirdi, metinlerin
makamdan ayrılmak için görünür performansları. Both disciplines view drama as a species of

*
PMLA, Vol. 113, No. 5 (Oct., 1998), pp. 1093-1107.
performance driven by texts; as a result, drama appears to be an increasingly residual mode of
performance.Her iki disiplinin metinler tarafından yönlendirilen bir performans tür olarak drama
görmek; bir sonucu olarak, drama performansı giderek kalıntı modu gibi görünüyor.
In the past two decades, the literary discussion of drama has developed a
sophisticated approach to performance, a critical vocabulary for considering the
interplay between the scripted drama and the (actual, implied, or imagined)
practices of stage performance. Son iki yıl içerisinde, drama edebi tartışma performans
sofistike bir yaklaşım, senaryosunu drama ve sahne performansı (gerçek, zımni ya da hayali)
uygulamalar arasındaki etkileşimi göz önüne alınarak için eleştirel bir dil geliştirmiştir. In
Shakespeare studies—one corner of literary study where performance has had an
effect—the analysis of stage performance is motivated by a disciplinary interest in
the dramatic text, and not surprisingly, many discussions of the stage implicitly
take performance to be underwritten by a text. Shakespeare In edebi çalışmanın
çalışmalar-bir köşesinde performans şaşırtıcı ve dramatik metin bir disiplin ilgi motive olup sahne
performansının bir ef ¬ fect-analiz etti nerede, sahne im birçok tartışmalar olmak performans almak
plicitly ¬ metin tarafından underwritten. This view is exemplified by important studies
that collocate theatrical practice with Shakespeare scholarship (Styan,
Shakespeare Revolution', Taylor, Reinventing Shakespeare), that trace histrionic
(Goldman, Acting and Shakespeare) or illocution-ary (Berger) patterns latent in
the play texts, that describe the performance "discoveries" productions make
about the plays (Warren 3) or the "decisions" any production must confront in
staging a text (Dawson xi), or that interpret the dramatic text not only as
encoding practices current in the era of the play's composition (gender trouble in
Shakespeare's plays reflected in cross-dressing by male actors playing female
roles, for example) but also as responding to the circumstances of modern stage
performance.1 Bu görüşe de illocution-li (Berger) desenleri latent veya (Goldman, Oyunculuk ve
Shakespeare) histrionik iz Shakespeare burs (Styan, Shakespeare Devrimi ', Tay ¬ lor, Reinventing
Shakespeare) ile tiyatro uygulama düzenlemek önemli çalışmalar, örneklenirperformans "keşifler"
yapımları tarif oyun metinleri, çalış (Warren 3) veya herhangi bir üretim, bir metin (Demir ¬ oğlu xi)
evrelemesinde yüzleşmek gerekir ya da dramatik metin değil, sadece kodlama uygulamaları
yorumlayan "kararları" hakkında olunoyunun kompozisyon döneminde geçerli ama (Shakespeare'in
cinsiyet sorun çapraz örneğin kadın rolleri oynayan erkek aktörler tarafından pansuman yansıyan
çalış) aynı zamanda modern sahne performance.1 koşulları yanıt olarak. While these modes of
performance analysis are highly developed in Shakespeare studies, similar
scholar formations orbit around other playwrights, where criticism traces
performative features of the drama to designs in the dramatic text—Chekhov
(Styan, Chekhov), Beckett (Cohn), and Moliere (Whitton) come to mind, as do
classical Greek dramatists (Taplin; McDonald). Performans analizi bu modları çok
Shakespeare çalışmalar, diğer yazarlar, çevresinde benzer bilgin oluşumları yörüngede gelişmiş
olmasına rağmen nerede dramatik metin Çehov (Styan, Çehov), Beckett (Cohn) tasarımlar için drama
eleştiri izleri performatif özellikleri ve Moliere (Whitton) olarak klasik Yunan dra ¬ matists (;
McDonald Taplin) yapmak, akla geliyor.
As Michael Bristol and others have observed, this view of text and performance
places performance in a "ministerial" or "derivative" relation to the dramatic text,
which is regarded as the authentic ground or source of theatrical meaning
(Shakespeare's America 105; Big-Time Shakespeare 61). Michael Bristol ve diğerleri
gözlemlediği gibi, otantik zemin ya da tiyatral bir anlam (Shake ¬ speare's America 105 kaynağı
olarak kabul edilir dramatik metin, bir "bakanlık"ya da "türev" ilişkin metin ve performans yerlerde
performans bu görüşü; Büyük-Time Shakespeare 61). There are various reasons to question
this model of performance, and the "expansive interdisciplinary or
postdisciplinary agenda" (Roach, Cities xii) of performance studies might be
expected to relocate dramatic performance within a wider perspective, an
"antidiscipline" (Carlson 188-89) not concerned with maintaining the priority of
texts or with seeing performance merely as a side effect of dramatic writing.
Flourishing in an ambiguous tension with theater studies and drama studies,
performance studies now traces the horizon of an energetically expanding field
characterized by a range of aims, methods, and objects of inquiry: Bu performans
modeli soruya çeşitli nedenlerle performans çalışmaları "geniş disiplinler arası veya postdisciplinary
gündemi" (Roach, Şehirler xii) vardır ve daha geniş bir bakış açısı, bir "antidiscipline" (Carlson 188-
89 içinde dramatik performans taşınmaya beklenebilir ) metinlerin öncelikli korunması veya dramatik
emri ¬ ing bir yan etkisi olarak sadece performansını görme ile ilgili değil. Şimdi ¬ ater çalışmaları ve
drama çalışmaları, performans çalışmaları izler amaçları, yöntemleri bir dizi ile karakterize bir enerjik
genişletmek ¬ ing alan ufuk, ve soruşturma nesnelerle belirsiz bir gerginlik gelişecektir:
As Michael Bristol and others have observed, this view of text and performance
places performance in a "ministerial" or "derivative" relation to the dramatic text,
which is regarded as the authentic ground or source of theatrical meaning
(Shakespeare's America 105; Big-Time Shakespeare 61). Michael Bristol ve
diğerlerinin gözlemlediği gibi, metin ve performansın bu bakış açısı performansı,
tiyatral anlamın kaynağı ya da özgün tabanı olarak da bilinen dramatic metin ile
olan ilişkisini “zorunlu” ya da “türemiş” olarak değerlendirir. (Shakespeare's
America 105; Big-Time Shakespeare 61). There are various reasons to question
this model of performance, and the "expansive interdisciplinary or
postdisciplinary agenda" (Roach, Cities xii) of performance studies might be
expected to relocate dramatic performance within a wider perspective, an
"antidiscipline" (Carlson 188-89) not concerned with maintaining the priority of
texts or with seeing performance merely as a side effect of dramatic writing. Bu
performans modelinin sorgulanmasını gerektiren birçok neden vardır ve
performansın “geniş kapsamlı disiplinlerarası ya da disiplinlersonrası gündemi”
çalışmalarının (Roach, Cities xii) dramatic performansı, sadece dramatic yazımın
bir yan etkisi olarak görmek ya da metinlerin önceliğini belirlemek dışında bir
“karşı-disiplin” olarak daha geniş bir bakış açısıyla yeniden incelemesi beklenir.
Flourishing in an ambiguous tension with theater studies and drama studies,
performance studies now traces the horizon of an energetically expanding field
characterized by a range of aims, methods, and objects of inquiry: ethnographies
of performance (Conquergood, "Ethnography, Rhetoric" and "Rethinking
Ethnography"; Limon; Taussig); psychoanalytic (Phelan) and postcolonial
(Bharucha; Savigliano) models of representation; institutional studies (Cole;
Patraka); studies of street performance (Roach, "Mardi Gras Indians"),
performance art (Schneider), and performance in everyday life (Kapsalis); and
theoretical investigations of identity performance (Butler, Gender Trouble).
Tiyatro çalışmaları ve drama çalışmaları ile ikili bir gerginliğin doğmasıyla,
performance çalışmaları hızla gelişen, araştırmalarında birçok amaç, yöntem ve
hedef belirleyerek ilerleyen performans çalışmaları zemin değiştirmektedir:
performansın etnografyası (Conquergood, "Ethnography, Rhetoric" and "Rethinking
Ethnography"; Limon; Taussig); psikoanalitik (Phelan) ve sunumun post-
sömürgesel modelleri (Bharucha; Savigliano); enstitü çalışmaları (Cole; Patraka);
sokak performansı çalışmaları (Roach, "Mardi Gras Indians"), performans sanatı
(Schneider) ve günlük yaşamda performans (Kapsalis); ve kişilik
performanslarının teorik incelemeleri (Butler, Gender Trouble).Yet the burgeoning
of performance studies has not really clarified the relation between dramatic
texts and performance. Fakat yeni yeni gelişen performans çalışmaları dramatic
metinler ile performans arasındaki ilişkiyi tam olarak açıklayamamaktadır. As an
object of and vehicle for sustained theoretical inquiry, dramatic performance
often emerges in performance studies marked with the vague contemptibility of
the familiar. Teorik araştırmaların hedefi ve aracı olarak, dramatic performans
bilinen belirsizlik ile tanımlanır. As Richard Schechner puts it in a now notorious
comment in TDR: "[T]heatre as we have known and practiced it—the staging of
written dramas—will be the string quartet of the 21st century: a beloved but
extremely limited genre, a subdivision of performance" ("New Paradigm" 8). Rich-
ard Schechner TDR’de bilinen bir öneri öne surer: "[T]iyatro, bizim bildiğimiz ve
ortaya koyduğumuz gibi-yazılı dramaların sahnelenmesi- 21. yüzyılın sıralı dörtlüsü
olacaktır: değerli fakat oldukça sınırlı bir tür, performansın altbölümü” ("New
Paradigm" 8).
How practitioners of performance studies and of dramatic studies understand
dramatic performance is important, not because Schechner is wrong, but
because he is mainly right. Schechner yanıldığı için değil, tam tersi haklı olduğu
için Performans çalışmaları ve dramatic çalışmalar araştırmacılarının dramatic
performansı nasıl gördükleri önemlidir. Understanding dramatic performance as
authorized in a relatively straightforward way by a scripted text does indeed
consign theater (and criticism that understands performance to be determined by
the text) to some faded conceptual Levittown: dramatic performance is a series of
authorized reproductions, each plotted on the blueprint of the authorial text.
Dramatik performansı yazılı metin ile oldukça açık bir şekilde anlamak tiyatroyu
zamanı geçmiş bir kavram olarak bırakır Levittown:dramatik performans yazarsal
metin modeli üzerinde çizilmiş bir dizi uzman üretimdir. It may be that at this mo-
ment in the history of cultural production in the West, the performance of plays is
residual, a mode of production fully inscribed within a discourse of textual and
cultural authority (e.g., Shakespeare or Beckett) that other kinds of performance
are able to engage in more resistant, oppositional, emergent ways. Bu aşamada,
Batı’daki kültürel üretim tarihinde, oyunların performansı kalıcıdır ki bu diğer
performans türlerini daha dayanıklı, muhalif ve belirgin bir şekilde birleştirebilen
metinsel ve kültürel bir söylem ile tamamen çizilen bir tüe üretim şeklidir. Yet
although the sense of dramatic performance as a performance of a play is
widespread, as John Rouse remarks, just "what the word of means" in this context
is "far from clear" (146). Fakat, bir oyunun performansı olarak dramatik
performans algısı, John Rouse’un değindiği gibi, bu metindeki “kelimelerin ne
anlama geldiği” “anlaşılır olmaktan uzaktır” fikri yaygındır (146). How can
performance studies help move the literary conception of drama beyond the
incapacitating notion of performance as a version of the text, a version emptied
of multiplicity and ambiguity through the process of (authorized) embodiment?
Peki performans çalışmaları performansın metnin bir çeşitlemesi olduğu,
çeşitliliğin boşalmış çeşidi olduğu ve (uzman) düzenleme süreci boyunca ortaya
çıkan belirsizlik olduğu inanışını etkisizleştirmesi dışında edebi bir kavram olarak
algılanmasına nasıl yardımcı olabilir?
I
One way literary scholars have adapted their understanding of texts to the
environment of performance is by using Austin's approach to speech acts, working
to see the performative mediating between language and modes of doing.
Edebiyatçılar metinleri olan bakış açılarını Austin’in dil ve eylem çeşitlerini
bağdaştıran edimleri görebilmek için çalıştığı konuşma eylemleri yaklaşımını
kullanarak performsın ortamına uyarlamışlardır. Much as literary scholars tend to
see dramatic performance as lapsed reading deriving from the proper meanings
prescribed by the text, Austin is notoriously skeptical of theatrical performatives.
Her ne kadar edebiyatçılar dramatik performansı metin tarafından tanımlanan
özel anlamalardan türetilen zaman aşımına uğramış incelemeler olarak görse de,
Austin herkesin bildiği gibi tiyatral edimlerden kuşkuludur. Austin, of course,
finds theatrical discourse peculiarly "hollow"—"performative utterance will, for
example, be in a peculiar way hollow or void if said by an actor on the stage" (22)
—insofar as it exemplifies a special class of infelicitous utterance in which the
motives of the agent ("persons having certain thoughts or feelings" [15]) are
insincere or are not directly embodied in subsequent conduct (an utterance can
also be hollow in this sense if "introduced in a poem, or spoken in soliloquy" [22]).
Elbette Austin tiyatral söylemi tuhaf bir şekilde “boş”-“edimsel sözce, örneğin,
sahnede bir aktör tarafından dile getirilirse tuhaf bir şekilde boş ya da gereksiz
olacaktır”(22)- bir temsilcinin (“belirli düşünceleri ya da duyguları olan insanlar”)
hareketlerini de içeren yersiz sözcelerin özel bir sınıfı örneklediği kadarıyla
samimiyetsiz ya da doğrudan sonraki davranışlarda (bu bağlamda bir sözce eğer
“bir şiirde ya da monolog konuşmada bulunursa boş
olabilir.”(22))şekillenmediğini söyler. Austin excludes such hollow utterance from
consideration precisely because it uses language in ways he finds "parasitic upon
[language's] normal use—ways which fall under the doctrine of the etiolations of
language" (22). Austin böyle boş bir sözceyi düşünceden kesinlikle ayırır çünkü o
dili normal (dil) kullanımı üzerinde “bir parazit olarak-dilin soldurulması prensibi
altında” kullanır (22).Oddly enough, while Austin's cavalier dismissal of theatrical
performatives—hollow to whom? In what sense?—now seems to drive literary
studies toward performativity and performance, it does so by asserting the
peculiar hollowness of dramatic theater. Yeterince tuhaf bir şekilde, Austin’in
tiyatral edimleri küçümseme yaklaşımı-kime göre boş?hangi anlamda?- edebi
çalışmaları edimselliğe ve performansa yöneltmesine rağmen, dramatic tiyatronun
tuhaf boşluğunu savunur.
Several recent efforts to use Austin to reclaim performance from dramatic
theater work in this way, segregating unscripted performance from the
tawdriness of the stage to liberate performance (and performance studies) from its
infelicitous connection to the theatrical (and to theater studies). Andrew Parker and
Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick, for instance, use Austin to chart a "convergence"
between literary studies and performance studies that has pushed performativity
"onto center stage" (1): "If one consequence of this appreciation has been a
heightened willingness to credit a performative dimension in all ritual,
ceremonial, scripted behaviors, another would be the acknowledgment that
philosophical essays themselves surely count as one such performative instance"
(2). Andrew Parker ve Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick, örneğin, Austin’i edebi çalışmalar
ve “sahne üzerinde” edimselliği ortaya koymuş olan performans çalışmaları (1):
“bu değerlendirmenin bir sonucu olarak abartılı bir istek oluşmasıdır. arasında bir
“yakınlık” çizmek için kullanırlar.
Despite this disciplinary prejudice, Parker and Sedgwick nonetheless read Austin
in a way that imagines a more subtle and adequate relation among drama, theater,
and performance. Bu disiplinsel önyargıya rağmen, Parker ve Sedgwick yine de
Austin’i drama, tiyatro ve performansla arasında daha yakın ve yeterli bir ilişki
hayal ederek okur. Developing the reading of Austin in Derrida's "Signature Event
Context," Parker and Sedgwick note that Austin's exclusion of theatrical discourse
from ordinary performance finally predicates performative utterance on the
"hollow" citationality characteristic of the stage. Derrida'nın "Signature Event
Context"deki Austin okumasını geliştiren Paker ve Sedgwick, Austin’in sıradan
performansı tiyatro söyleminden ayırmasında sahnenin “içi boş” alıntılama özelliği
üzerinde performatif söyleyişe dayandırdığını belirtirler. Parker and Sedgwick
open the terrain of the performative by deconstructing Austin's opposition
between "normal" and etiolated performance, between the felicitously
performative and the theatrical: performative speech cannot be distinguished
from the "hollow" utterances of the stage on the basis of originality, as though
nontheatrical speaking were authentic and nonrepetitive. Parker ve Sedgwick
performatif bölgesini Austin’in “normal” ve solmuş performansı arasındaki
karşıtlığı yıkarak, sözlü performatif ve tiyatral arasında: tiyatral olmayan konuşma
otantik ve tekrarlanamazmış gibi
performatif konuşma, özgünlük temelinde sahne "içi boş" sözleri ayırt edemez.
Performatives can work felicitously only to the extent that they, like theatrical
performance, are reiterable, that they signify through a process of citation;
utterances perform actions only when they iterate familiar verbal or behavorial
regimes. Edimler, tiyatral performans gibi, mükerrer olduğu sürece isabetli bir
şekilde çalışabilir ki onlar alıntılama sürecine işaret ederler; sözler sadece bilinen
sözlü ya da davranoşsal rejimleri tekrarladıklarında eyleme dönüşür. But while
this deconstruction reveals the citational "hollowness" of ordinary language
performatives, it does not seem, conversely, to render the "hollowness" peculiar
to the stage any more felicitous.4 Fakat bu yıkım sıradan dil edimlerinin alıntısal
“boşluğunu” ortaya koyar, tam tersine o “boşluğu” daha isabetli bir sahnye
dönüştürmez. While ordinary-language performatives signify not as words but as a
reiteration of various ideological and behavorial regimes, theatrical performance—
in the conventional literary sense assumed by Austin and by Parker and Sedgwick
—is understood principally in literary terms, as a mode of speaking scripted
words. Sıradan dil edimleri sözcükler yerine ideolojik ve davranışsal rejimlerin
yinelemesi olarak belirtirlerken, tiyatral performans – Austin, Parker ve Sedgwick
tarafından ortaya atılan geleneksel edebi anlamda- prensip olarak yazılı
sözcüklerin bir türü olarak görülürler. The theater, in this sense, is understood to
signify principally by reiterating the dramatic text (a mode of citation that renders
theater peculiarly "hollow"), not by deploying scripted language in the
constitutive citational behaviors proper to the circumstances of utterance, here
to the stage. Bu bağlamda, tiyatro, sözcelere uygun olarak aktarılan temel
davranışlarda senaryoyu dağıtarak değil, prensip olarak dramatik metinlerin
yinelemesi olarak görülür (tiyatroyu tuhaf bir şekilde “boşluğa” çeviren alıntılama
türü). But is it language, the text, that motivates the force of dramatic perfor-
mance? Is it, in other words, the dramatic text that the citational performances of
the theater cite? Fakat dramatik performans gücünü harekete geçiren dil, metin,
midir? Diğer bir deyişle, dramatik metin, tiyatro aktarılan performansı mıdır?
"When is saying something doing something? And how is saying something
doing something?"— as Parker and Sedgwick imply, one of the problems of
modeling dramatic performance on Austinian performativity is that performance
is reduced to the performance of language, words, as though dramatic
performance were merely, or most essentially, a mode of utterance, the
(infelicitous) production of speech acts (1). Bir şeyi ne zaman yaparsın? Ve nasıl
yaparsın?- Parker ve Sedgwick’in de belirttiği gibi, Austin’in edimselliğine göre
dramatik performansı şekillendirme sorunlarından biri de performansın, dramatic
perdormans sadece bir çeşit sözce, söz edim üretimiymiş gibi dil performansı
olarak tanımlanmasıdır (1). The conundrum that Parker and Sedgwick enact here
has to do with their view of dramatic performance—or the mode of utterance
known as acting—as a straightforward citation of the dramatic text and
nontheatrical performance (the marriage ceremony, for example) as a mode of
citation that extends well beyond the text ("I do"), that reconstitutes the
meanings of the text instead of being determined by those meanings. Parker ve
Sedgwick’in burada aldığı kararlar, (“ben yaparım”) anlamlarıyla tanımlanmak
yerine metnin anlamını yeniden inşa eden bir aktarım çeşidi olarak, basit bir
dramatik metin aktarımı ve tiyatral olmayan performans olarak (örneğin evlilik
töreni) onların dramatik performansa-ya da oyun olarak bilinen bir çeşit sözce-
bakış açılarıyla ele almak gereklidir. Indeed, it is in this distinction that Parker and
Sedgwick's rethinking of speech acts holds the most promise for a rethinking of
dramatic performance. Aslında, önemli olan Parker ve Sedgwick’in konuşma
eylemlerini yeniden ele almasının dramatik performanssın yeniden yorumlanması
için bir umut doğmuş olmasıdır. For while theater remains for them a peculiarly
hollow sign of how social hegemonies are reproduced through a conventional
apparatus of visibility (the proscenium and the realistic modes of dramatic
narrative and audience interaction it shapes), the marriage ceremony provides a
searching model of the relation between texts ("I do") and performances, a
model more adequate to the task of figuring dramatic performance. Tiyatro onlar
için görünürlüğün geleneksel bir aracı olarak, sosyal hakimiyetin ne kadar
artırıldığının boş bir işareti olarak kalmasına rağmen, evlilik töreni (“ben yaparım”)
metni ve performansı arasındaki ilişkiyi şekillendirme yöntemi sunar ki bu şekil
dramatik performansı biçimlendirme görevi için daha yeterlidir. It is not the text
that prescribes the meanings of the performance: it is the construction of the text
within the specific apparatus of the ceremony that creates performative force.
Performansın anlamını belirleyen metin değildir: edimsel güç yaratan belirlenmiş
tören aracı ile metni şekillendirir. The performance is not a citation of the text.
Performans metnin bir aktarımı değildir. The ceremony deploys the text—and
much else—as part of an elaborate reiteration of a specific vision of social order:
the meaning of the performance depends on the citation not of the text but of the
regimes of heterosexual socialization, on the interplay among a specific text,
individual performers, the "materiality and historical density of performance"
(Diamond, Introduction 5), and the web of performance practices that constitute
the performance as a meaningful citation. Tören metni -ve daha azını- belirgin bir
sosyal sıralama görüşünün yinelemesinin bir parçası olarak uygular:
performansın anlamı metnin aktarımına değil karşıcinsel sosyalleşme rejimlerine,
belli bir metin içindeki karşılıklı etkileşime, “performansın tarihsel ve maddesel
yoğunluğu” (Diamond, Introduction5), ve performansı anlamlı bir aktarım haline
getiren performans alıştırmaları ağına bağlıdır. Although the theater is, for
Parker and Sedgwick, still hollow, their discussion of non-theatrical performance
suggests that dramatic performance should be released from the charge of
"obeisance" to the playwright's or the text's authority (Diamond, Introduction 3).
Parker ve Sedgwick için tiyatro boş olmasına rağmen, tiyatral olmayan performans
tartışmaları için, dramatik performansın oyun yazarına ya da metin uzmanına
“saygı gösterilerek” orataya konması gerektiğini söylerler.
Performing reconstitutes the text; it does not echo, give voice to, or translate
the text. Performans metni yeniden inşa eder; taklit etmez, seslendirmez ya da
tercüme etmez. Performance does not cite the text any more than "I do" consti-
tutes the force of marriage. Performans, metinden evliliğin gücünü gösteren “ben
yaparım” yapılarından daha fazla aktarım yapmaz. Instead, performance
produces the text within a system of manifestly citational behavior, such that
when "a performance 'works,'" it does so "to the extent that it draws on and
covers over the constitutive conventions by which it is mobilized" (Butler,
Excitable Speech 51). Bunun yerine, performans aktarımsal davranış sistemi ile
birlikte metni üretir (Butler, Excitable Speech 51). If, as Judith Butler argues in
her critique of the perlocutionary claims of antipornography censorship, "the
performativity of the text is not under sovereign control" (69), then the meanings
of theatrical performance cannot be attributed to the sovereign control of the
dramatic text. Judith Butler’ın pornografi karşıtı sansürlemenin etkisel
iddialarında, öne sürdüğü gibi “metnin edimselliği iktidarın kontrolünde değil
ise”, tiyatral performansın anlamı dramatik metnin kontrolüne atfedilemez. Does
stage performance operate citationally, which accumulate "the force of authority
through the repetition or citation of a prior and authoritative set of practices"
(51)? “Önceki ve yetkin uygulamalar bütününün aktarımı ya da tekrarı
aracılığıyla otorite gücü”nü harekete geçiren sahne performansı, aktarımsal
olarak işlev görür mü (51)?As a citational practice, dramatic performance— like
all other performance—is engaged not so much in citing texts as in reiterating its
own regimes; these regimes can be understood to cite—or, perhaps subversively,
to resignify—social and behavorial practices that operate outside the theater and
that constitute contemporary social life. Aktarımsal bir uygulama olarak,
dramatik performans-diğer bütün performanslar gibi-metinlerin aktarımıyla, kendi
rejiminin tekrarında olduğu gibi, bağlantılı değildir; bu rejimler tiyatro dışında
işlev kazanan ve temel sosyal yaşamı kuran sosyal ya da davranışsal
uygulamaları aktarmak olarak-ya da belirtmek olarak- anlaşılabilir. The citational
practices of the stage—acting styles, directorial conventions, scenography—
operate on and transform texts into something with performative force:
performances, behavior. Sahnenin aktarımsal uygulamaları-oyun tarzları,
yönetim kuralları, skenografi-metinler üzerinde işlev kazanır ve onları performans
ve davranış ile edimsel güce çevirir. The invocation of Austin tends to associate
theatrical performance with speech and so leads ineluctably to the portrayal of a
performance's relation to the dramatic text as akin to Austin's account of an
utterance's relation to language: dramatic theater is understood as a perlocu-
tionary medium, in which the performance onstage is a direct consequence of
performatives inscribed in the text. Austin’in fikirleri tiyatral performansı
konuşmayla birleştirmeye eğilimlidir bu yüzden Austin’in sözce ile dil arasındaki
ilişkiye yaklaşımına benzer olarak, bu fikirler dramatik metinin performans ile
ilişkisini kaçınılmaz kılar: dramatik tiyatro sahnedeki performansı metinde yazılı
olan edimin doğrudan bir sonucu olarak anlaşılır. This application of performativity
to dramatic performance reinforces the sense that performances are scripted by
their texts and so reproduces both traditional and recent disciplinary controver-
sies among drama studies, theater studies, and performance studies. Edimin
dramatik performans üzerindeki bu uygulaması, performansların kendi metinleri
tarafından yazıldığı fikrini güçlendirir ve bu yüzden drama çalışmaları, tiyatro
çalışmaları ve performans çalışmaları arasındahem geleneksel hem güncel
akademik tartışmalar üretilmesine sebep olur. A more consistent rereading of
Austin, an application of the deconstruction of "I do" not only to social actions but
to dramatic performance as well, would relocate the function of the text in the
performance, conceive the text as material for labor, for the work of production.
Austin’in daha kapsamlı bir okuması, “ben yaparım” yıkımının sadece sosyal
davranışlara değil dramatik performansa uygulanması, üretim aşaması için,
performansdaki metin işlevini yeniden kuracak, metnin çalışma için sadece bir
malzeme olarak algılanmasını sağlayacaktır. Although dramatic performance uses
texts, it is hardly authorized by them: to preserve this claim is to preserve the
sense of dramatic performance as a hollow, even etiolated, species of the literary.
Dramatik performans metinleri kullanmasına rağmen, onlar tarafından
yönetilmeleri zordur: bu iddiayı korumak dramatik performans fikrini bir boşluk
olarak, hatta edebiyatın solmuş çeşitleri olarak kabul etmektir.
II
One of the ways both literary studies and performance studies have
misconceived dramatic performance is by taking it merely as a reiteration of
texts, a citation that imports literary or textual authority into performance.
Edebi çalışmaların ve performans çalışmalarının dramatic performans olarak
algılanmasının sebeplerinden biri onu sadece metinlerin yinelemesi olarak,
edebi ya da metinsel otoriteyi performansa bağlayan bir alıntı olarak
görmelerinden kaynaklanır.

In part because performance studies shares this literary sense of dramatic

theater, it has successfully invoked ethnographic models of ritual and everyday-
life behavior as a way to redefine performance in explicitly nonliterary and
nontheatrical terms. Performans çalışmaları dramatik tiyatronun bu edebi
yaklaşımına ortak olduğu için, performs çalışmaları edebi olmayan ve tiyatral
olmayan terimlerdeki performansı tekrar tanımlama yöntemi olarak günlük-yaşam
davranışı ve etnografik rituel modellerini başarıyla yerine getirmektedir. Not
surprisingly, perhaps, Clifford Geertz's readings of culture as text—that have been
influential in the practice of new historicism and in its morphing into cultural
poetics— provide a defining point of contention. Clifford Geertz’in kültürü metin
olarak değerlendirmesi-modern tarihçilik uygulamasında ve kültürel şiir
geleneğini şekillendirmede etkin olan- iddiaya bir başlangıç noktası sağlar. For
while the textualization of culture enabled literary studies to generalize
interpretive practices from texts to other phenomena, the ethnographic
approaches invoked in performance studies have come to resist reading
performances as texts. In part, this hesitation stems from a laudable desire not
to privilege the dramatic theater of the West as a paradigm of performance: not
only, of course, are many non-Western performance forms nontextual, but in many
of those that use texts—No, for example—the text does not function as it does in
conventional Western theater. But this resistance is sometimes also driven by
suspicion regarding writing's implication in the reproduction of authority and
consequently in the reproduction of social hegemonies. Sıradan dil edimleri
sözcükler yerine ideolojik ve davranışsal rejimlerin yinelemesi olarak
belirtirlerken, tiyatral performans – Austin, Parker ve Sedgwick tarafından ortaya
atılan geleneksel edebi anlamda- prensip olarak yazılı sözcüklerin bir türü olarak
görülürler. Resistance to a textualizing ethnology is modeled, in other words, on
the dialectic between authorized texts and resistant performances that informs
Parker and Sedgwick's understanding of performativity. Edebiyatçılar metinleri
olan bakış açılarını Austin’in dil ve eylem çeşitlerini bağdaştıran edimleri görebilmek
için çalıştığı konuşma eylemleri yaklaşımını kullanarak performsın ortamına
uyarlamışlardır.
In this view—elegantly argued by Dwight Con-quergood ("Ethnography,
Rhetoric" and "Rethinking Ethnography")—Geertz's textual model of culture
embodies a profound desire to represent other cultures within Western
epistemologies. Dramatik performans metinleri kullanmasına rağmen, onlar
tarafından yönetilmeleri zordur: bu iddiayı korumak dramatik performans fikrini bir
boşluk olarak, hatta edebiyatın solmuş çeşitleri olarak kabul etmektir.
Geertz typically takes the "culture of a people" as "an ensemble of texts,
themselves ensembles, which the anthropologist strains to read over the
shoulders of those to whom they properly belong" (452). Geertz’in kültürü metin
olarak değerlendirmesi-modern tarihçilik uygulamasında ve kültürel şiir
geleneğini şekillendirmede etkin olan- iddiaya bir başlangıç noktası sağlar. The
Balinese cockfight, to take Geertz's celebrated example, does
what, for other peoples with other temperaments and other conventions, Lear
and Crime and Punishment do; it catches up these themes—death, masculinity,
rage, pride, loss, beneficence, chance—and, ordering them into an encompassing
structure, presents them in such a way as to throw into relief a particular view of
their essential nature. (443)
Geertz clearly articulates the practices of other cultures with the role of
literature in the West, but what disturbs Conquergood about the textualization of
culture is a more fundamental problem. Geertz Batıdaki edebiyatın rolü ile diğer
kültür uygulamalarını açıkça belirtmiştir, fakat Conquergood’u kültürün
metinselleştirilmesi hakkında rahatsız eden şey daha temel bir problem. Eth-
nography, to the extent that it reads the culture of nonliterate societies as texts,
prolongs a colonizing project, modeling the epistemologies of the other in Western
terms. Etnografi, cahil toplumların kültürünü metin olarak okuduğu kadarıyla,
Batı terimlerindeki diğer etimolojileri şekillendirerek bir kolonileştirme projesini
sürdürür. Conquergood argues that to regard culture as a text and to represent it
in writing is to represent the processes of other cultures not only in terms of
Western ways of knowing and representation but also in forms—writing, texts—
that have often been used to dominate and exploit them. Conquergood kültürü
metin olarak değerlendirmeye ve onu yazıda ifade etmenin diğer kültürlerin
sürecini ifade etmek bilginin sadece batılı yolları değil onları bastırmak ve
dışlamak için sık sık kullanılan yazılı metin halleri olduğunu tartışmıştır.
Performance-sensitive ethnography has the salutary effect of enabling
ethnographers and their audiences to recognize and perhaps to circumvent such
colonizing epistemologies. Performans odaklı etnografinin etnograflar ve onların
takipçileri üzerinde kolonileştirme etimolojilerini tanımlamakta geliştirici bir etkisi
vardır. But while performance may share with rhetoric an "opposition to
foundationalist thought" (Conquergood, "Ethnography, Rhetoric" 80), to see
performance as a mode of resistance to textual authority is to mistake the in-
strumental for the essential. Fakat performans retorik ile “ temelci düşünceye
muhalif olur” ki performansın metinsel otoriteye bir çeşit direniş olduğunu
göstermek için (Conquergood, "Ethnography, Rhetoric" 80). While writing (in some
situations, at least) may now be associated with colonial hegemony, complicity with
authority is hardly foundational to textual practices. Yazma şu aralar koloni
hegomanyasıyla paralel görülebilmesine rağmen, otorite ile karmaşa metinsel
uygulamalara temel teşkil etmez. The authority of writing and other
performances as modes of cultural production is determined much as that of
speech acts is: within an elaborate, historically contingent, dynamic network of
citational possibilities. Yeterince tuhaf bir şekilde, Austin’in tiyatral edimleri
küçümseme yaklaşımı-kime göre boş?hangi anlamda?- edebi çalışmaları
edimselliğe ve performansa yöneltmesine rağmen, dramatic tiyatronun tuhaf
boşluğunu savunur. Although Conquergood is alert to this point ("How does
performance reproduce, enable, sustain, challenge, subvert, critique, and
naturalize ideology?" he asks ["Rethinking Ethnography" 190]), the habitual
collocation of textuality with authority reflects more clearly on the uses of writing
—in ethnographic practice, in a culture at large—than on essential features of
texts or performances as forms of cultural production.7 Sahnenin aktarımsal
uygulamaları-oyun tarzları, yönetim kuralları, skenografi-metinler üzerinde işlev
kazanır ve onları performans ve davranış ile edimsel güce çevirir. Shakespearean
drama, for example, might now be taken as an example of textual culture, indeed
as part of an avowedly imperial educational project (see Bennett). While it is time
for the presumed authority of texts over performances to be displaced, Conquer-
good is right to sense that if "the Performance Paradigm simply is pitted against
the Textual Paradigm, then its radical force will be coopted by yet another
either/or binary construction that ultimately reproduces modernist thinking. The
Performance Paradigm will be most useful if it decenters, without discarding,
texts" ("Rethinking Ethnography" 191). Yet in some respects, this "radical force"
depends on a foundational binary, the untenable opposition between texts and
performances. Sahnenin aktarımsal uygulamaları-oyun tarzları, yönetim kuralları,
skenografi-metinler üzerinde işlev kazanır ve onları performans ve davranış ile
edimsel güce çevirir. For the same reason that Conquergood celebrates the
connection between rhetoric and performance in a presumed "opposition to
foundationalist thought," it remains important not to relocate that foundation in
an opposition between scripted and unscripted performances. To see
performance as an "essentially contested concept" (Strine, Long, and Hopkins 183)
is to see that contestation taking place not only within performance but along its
borders as well, as Joseph Roach implies in suspending a "schematized
opposition of literacy and orality as transcendent categories," arguing that "these
modes of communication have produced one another interactively over time"
{Cities 11). Texts—with their boundaries in flux, their authors appearing and dis-
appearing, even their typography dissolving on the computer screen—might as
well be seen as similarly contested fields, fields in which notions of authority are
constantly under negotiation, redefinition, change. Yeterince tuhaf bir şekilde,
Austin’in tiyatral edimleri küçümseme yaklaşımı-kime göre boş?hangi anlamda?-
edebi çalışmaları edimselliğe ve performansa yöneltmesine rağmen, dramatic
tiyatronun tuhaf boşluğunu savunur. A more sophisticated understanding of how
performativity operates in the theater would make it difficult to see drama and
theater as ineluctably authoritarian, dependent on the reproduction (rather than
the decentering, the remaking as performance) of texts. Performans çalışmaları, non-
tiyatro, nonscripted, tören ve günlük yaşam nondramatic performansları bir canlı hesap geliştirdi,
metinlerin makamdan ayrılmak için görünür performansları.Can the conceptual tools of
performance studies and performance theory be used to expand the ways of
talking about dramatic performance that do not persistently ground it in textual
meanings, the reencoding in action of essentially textual messages, the authority
of the script, the text?
Ill
What are dramatic performances performances ofl One of the most disabling
aspects of performance criticism of drama is the way it tends—or until recently
has tended—to regard the performance as a reading, interpretation, realization
o/the text (or, much the same thing, o/the play or its potentialities or, for example,
of Shakespeare). Drama performansı eleştiri en devre
dışı yönlerinden biri dramatik performanslarıperformansları nedir bu eğilimi yolud
ur -veya
son eğilimi kadarmetin gerçekleştirilmesi(yada çok aynı şey bir okuma, yorumla
ma gibi performans nazara, Shakespeare’inörneğin oyun veya onun potansiyeli).
To say that a performance is of a text is immediately to recognize that its relation
to that text is extremely tenuous: a performance is not usually of one text in any
direct sense, since a number of different versions of a classic play might be
consulted as part of the production process and many scripts are produced and
used in the process of shaping a play.
Bir performans bir metin olduğunu söylemek için bu metin ile olan ilişkisi son
derece ince olduğunu kabul etmek hemen: bir klasik oyun farklı sürümlerini bir
dizi olarak danışılmalıdır belki bu yana performans, doğrudan herhangi
bir anlamda bir metin genellikle yok üretim süreci ve birçok komut bir
parçası üretilen ve bir oyun şekillendirme sürecinde kullandı. In contemporary
textual scholarship, the widespread interrogation of how texts constitute
authority would make such a claim similarly problematic (see McGann; Born-stein
and Williams; Shillingsburg; Grigely; Masten). The text is absorbed into the
multifarious verbal and nonverbal discourses of theatrical production, transformed
into an entirely incommensurable thing, an event. Texts in the theater are always
more like the phone book than like Hamlet: they are transformed by the
performative environment of the theater into something else, a performance.
Metin tamamen ölçüsüz şey, bir olay haline tiyatro üretim yönlü sözel ve sözel
olmayan söylemler içine emilir. One function of conventional theater is to assert
the rhetoric of of an assertion that is bound up in conventions of performance
rather than in an essential relation between texts and enactments. Sahnenin
aktarımsal uygulamaları-oyun tarzları, yönetim kuralları, skenografi-metinler
üzerinde işlev kazanır ve onları performans ve davranış ile edimsel güce çevirir.
The problem of dramatic theater's citationality is a complex one, and many
dramatic performances (hose-and-doublet Shakespeare) are inscribed with
authorizing gestures: they use acting, costume, direction, the entire mise-en-
scene to claim an authority located in a certain understanding of a text, a genre,
a performance tradition, a mystified author.
Dramatik tiyatro citationality sorunu ve karmaşık bir tanesidir çok dramatik
performansları (hortum-ve eş
Shakespeare) jestleri yetkisi ile yazılıdır: Onlar belirli bir
anlayış içinde yeralan bir yetki talebinde, kostüm,
yön, tüm miseenscene etkili kullanımı
Bir metin, bir tür, bir performans geleneği, şaşırtan yazar. Performances do not
signify by citing texts. A performance creates a sense of "proximity" (to the text,
to something else) as part of its rhetorical deployment of contemporary
conventions of performance, as a way of claiming "something we value."8 As
rhetoric, such gestures are hardly confined to dramatic performance. Sahnenin
aktarımsal uygulamaları-oyun tarzları, yönetim kuralları, skenografi-metinler
üzerinde işlev kazanır ve onları performans ve davranış ile edimsel güce çevirir.
Theatrical production— which recasts and so re-creates the script in another
idiom, as speech, gesture, or action that is entirely incommensurable with
notions of the text itself—should not be seen as distinctively preoccupied with
questions of authority. Such a view ignores the discourse of authentication
surrounding a variety of performance and performance-art forms, not only the
work of monologuists like Spalding Gray and Karen Finley, but also that of Anna
Deavere Smith—whose elaborately depersonalized miming of her interview
subjects may recall James Clifford's critique of "Geertz's abrupt disappearance
into his rapport" (40-41)—or performances that appear to cite a personal relation
to the subject matter (Annie Sprinkle comes to mind). Performans çalışmaları, non-
tiyatro, nonscripted, tören ve günlük yaşam nondramatic performansları bir canlı hesap geliştirdi,
metinlerin makamdan ayrılmak için görünür performansları.In all these cases, performance is
performative in Butler's sense, working as a "ritualized practice" that "draws on
and covers over the constitutive conventions by which it is mobilized" {Excitable
Speech 51); sometimes those conventions summon an illusory textual authority,
sometimes they do not.
How can dramatic performance be conceived not as the performance of the text
but as an act of iteration, an utterance, a surrogate standing in those positions,
uses, signifies the text within the citational practices of performance? Dramatik
performans nasıl metin performansı olarak değil de aktarımsal uygulamalarla
metne göndermeler yapan sözce, yineleme ve yerine kullanımlar olarak
algılanabilir? I am not thinking here of the long tradition (dating to the 1920s) of
setting classic plays in modern dress or in alternative "historical" settings. Ben
burada (1920lere uzanan) geleneksel klasik oyunları, modern kostümler içinde ya
da alternatif “tarihsel” kurguda sergilemekten bahsetmiyorum. Nor am I thinking
of experimental productions like the Performance Group's Dionysus in 69, a
landmark participatory, "environmental" production nonetheless deeply governed
by Euripides's The Bacchae. Instead, I have in mind productions that resituate the
production of the text in the performance in unconventional ways— through
speech, gesture, physical enactment—and thus resignify the authority
conventionally ascribed to the text. In Robert Wilson's production of Ibsen's When
We Dead Awaken, for instance, the performers' stiff gestures and operatically
unrealistic speech patterns prevented the assimilation of the words to a sense of
psychologically motivated character, usually viewed as a sign of fidelity to Ibsen
onstage. Robert Wilson’ın Ibsen'nın When We Dead Awaken değerlendirmesinde
Performans çalışmaları, non-tiyatro, nonscripted, tören ve günlük yaşam nondramatic performansları
bir canlı hesap geliştirdi, metinlerin makamdan ayrılmak için görünür performansları.One of the
most powerful stage performances I have seen recently, Going, Going, Gone, a
work "[conceived and [directed" by Anne Bogart and "[cheated and [p]erformed"
by the Saratoga International Theater Institute company, also uses performance
to interrogate textual functioning and exemplifies one version of performance-
sensitive research. Ben Gone Going Going, son
zamanlarda gördüğüm en güçlü sahne performansları biri,bir iş "gebe [ve yönetm
enliğini [" Anne Bogart tarafından Saratoga Uluslararası TiyatroEnstitüsü şirketi t
arafından "[aldattım ve [p erformed]" da kullanır performans metinişleyen sorgul
anmasına ve performans duyarlı araştırma bir sürümüdür örneğidir.The cast
consists of an older and a younger couple whose ages, gestures, costumes, and
behavior evoke the action of Edward Albee's Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? The
stage set and physical enactment reiterate Albee's Walpurgisnacht, or at least
Richard Burton's and Elizabeth Taylor's performances; the actors' intonations,
posture, and movement enact discussion, argument, seduction, "get the guests,"
surrogating the behavorial regimes of Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? In place of
Albee's dialogue, the actors speak fragments drawn from a range of scientific
(Stephen Hawking) and nonscientific (T. S. Eliot, William Blake) texts, a pastiche
of Newtonian, quantum mechanical, and literary utterances about the physical
world in its gross, subatomic, and poetic manifestations. Fakat yeni yeni gelişen
performans çalışmaları dramatic metinler ile performans arasındaki ilişkiyi tam
olarak açıklayamamaktadır As the director Tina Landau remarks, in Bogart's work
"the movement has been freed from the text so that each is informed by and
related to the other without it being the same as the other" (25). The meaning of
Going, Going, Gone cannot be ascribed to the text; the performance cannot be
understood—as productions of Shakespeare or Ibsen or Beckett usually are—as a
realization, translation, interpretation, or citation of (potentialities latent in) the
text. But while Going, Going, Gone might appear to be a special case, it is in fact
the normative case of dramatic performance. Much as "I do" gains its force from
the citational behaviors within which it is performed, so too the dramatic text of
more conventional plays gains its force in performance from the behaviors that
constitute it as meaningful. Giderken Ama gitmek, özel
bir durum olarak görünebilir Gone, aslında dramatikperformans normatif birduru
mdur. İçinde daha geleneksel çalış kazanımların çok dadramatik metin, yapılır cit
ational davranışlardan kazançlar gücünü "Evet" Much olarakanlamlı onuoluşturan
davranışlar performans yılında yürürlüğe girmiştir.This interrogation of the
working of texts relative to performances is not merely the province of per-
formance studies or of avant-garde theater; it is the work—often only the implicit
workofdramaticperformance.Metinlerin çalışma performanslarının göreli Bu sorgu
lama sadece performansçalışmaları yada avantgarde tiyatronun il değil, iş genelli
kle sadece örtük iş dramatik performans.Indeed, it impels the action of Baz
Luhrmann's widely distributed film William Shakespeare 's Romeo and Juliet. To be
sure, as a film, Luhrmann's work engages in a mode of surrogation unlike that of
theatrical performance. As a performance, it is preoccupied less with the theatrical
than with televisual citation, with the self-conscious address to an MTV audience
embodied in its urban setting, quick cuts, visual saturation, and pop-music sound
track. Gerçektende, yaygın film William Shakespeare'in Romeo ve Juliet dağıtılan
Baz Luhrmann eylem geçirdiği. Emin
olmak için, bir film gibi, Luhrmann çalışmaları
surrogation bir modda oturup tiyatro performansının
aksine. Performans olarak, kendi kentsel
ortamda, hızlı keser, görsel doygunluk ve popmüzik sound track somutlaşan bir
MTV izleyiciye bilinçli adresi, televizyon kanallarının alıntı ile daha tiyatro ile daha
az meşgul olduğunu. This dimension is also signaled in the opening and closing
moments of the film, in which a newscaster on a television screen speaks the pro-
logue and epilogue, and by the superposition of credits over the initial
appearances of the major characters: "Fulgensio Capulet as Juliet's Father" and
so on. Shakespeare's language performs in and so is constituted by such citations:
MTV; the made-for-TV acting styles of Claire Danes and Leonardo DiCaprio; the
span of film history that in the opening scene alone encompasses 1950s westerns
and gangsta films like Boyz N the Hood; the voguing (reminiscent of both
Madonna's video and Jennie Livingston's film Paris Is Burning) that sustains
Mercutio's Queen Mab scene and that lends Mercu-tio's entire performance
meaningful specificity as performance.
Timothy Murray haklı ve neşeli hissediyorum bir surrogation olarak televizyon fil
min alıntı
görüyor olsada Shakespeare'in tiyatro (2) en kritik "hangi söylem ve bakış açısı
Rönesans sahne
oyuncu motorları vardı ironi ve abartılı bir istikrarsızlaştırmamekanizması olarak"
Filmin resepsiyon bu "etki" ve Shakespeare'in metin içindeki olasıneden ilişkisi üz
erine odaklanır, sadece performans citational doku dikkat geçen ödedi.Although
Timothy Murray rightly sees the film's citation of television as a surrogation of the
playful feel of Shakespeare's theater—"as the destabilizing mechanism of irony
and hyperbole for which rhetoric and perspective were the playful engines on the
Renaissance stage" (2)—most critical reception of the film has paid only passing
attention to the citational texture of the performance, focusing instead on the
relation between these "effects" and their putative cause in Shakespeare's text.
While Stanley Kauffmann, for instance, recognizes the film's implication in music
video ("One visual cascade after another, one sound blast—mostly of rock—after
another" [40]), he regards the performance's success or failure as a function of
how well it reproduces the text.
Stanley Kauffmann iken, örneğin, müzik video filmin dolaylı tanır ("Birbiri
ardına görsel çağlayan, bir ses patlama-
çoğunlukla kaya sonra başkabir" [40]), o bir fonksiyonu
olarak performans başarısı veya başarısızlığı açısından nasıl iyi metin üretir.
Though finally preferring Luhrmann's approach to Trevor Nunn's "fiddling" with
decor in Twelfth Night, Kauffmann sees Luhr-mann as "in effect doing a
translation, almost as if he had rendered the text into Finnish or Bulgarian, with a
few English wisps remaining as souvenirs of the origin" (42).
How does William Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet represent the relation
between texts and performances? The film's engagement with the dynamics of
surrogation begins with its title.
Nasıl William Shakespeare'in Romeove Juliet metinleri ve performansları arasında
kiilişkiyi temsil ediyor? Surrogation dinamikleri ile filmin nişan başlığı ile başlar.
The title I have used above, in accordance with MLA style for regularizing titles—
Shakespeare's title, so to speak— never appears in the film: Romeo and Juliet.
The film's copyright title replaces the and with <&, and the title shown in the
opening and closing title sequences of the film, as well as in advertising and
promotional material, frames that & within a large red cross (when it does not do
away with the & altogether): Romeo + Juliet. Evoking, recalling, yet replacing the
canonical title of Shakespeare's play, the film is preoccupied with the questions I
have raised here, questions that apply to any dramatic performance: How does
performance interrogate the text?
Ama Shakespeare'in oyun kanonik başlık yerine hatırlatarak, film buradaartırdı so
ruları ile meşgul olan, herhangibir dramatik performans için geçerli sorular:Nasıl
yok performans sorguya metin? How does it mark its relation to, its surrogation
(and so its constitution) of, the text? Despite the film's effort to distance itself from
—indeed, often to repudiate—the text, in its self-conscious engagement with a
Shakespearean "origin" it seems in various ways to inspect the place of
Shakespeare and Shakespearean texts in contemporary culture, to memorialize
and reenact ideas about Shakespearean authority in performance, and to reflect
on the relation among text, performance, and citation. The texture of Luhrmann's
film is replete with visual allusions to, citations of, and stagings of the text.
Luhrmann's filmin dokusuna görsel imalarla olan alıntılar ve metin sahnelemeleri
ile doludur. The film's dense, vivid palette, its florid Catholicism, and its hyped-up
gang culture resonate against the baroque complexity of Shakespeare's
language, the local jargon, while at the same time marking the performance's
distance from the classical sounds of "Shakespearean" acting. More to the point,
many words of the text are represented visually, as words, often as labels. For
example, the "swords" that Tybalt and Benvolio refer to in act 1, scene 1 are
elaborate, jeweled pistols inlaid with religious icons; when Benvolio cries, "Put up
your swords" (1.1.65), the camera work focuses on his pistol and—more
important—on the manufacturer's label engraved on the barrel: Sword 9mm Se-
ries 5. When Capulet calls for his "long sword" (1.1.75), he reaches above the
door of the limo in which he is riding for an automatic rifle labeled Longsword.
Örneğin, "kılıç" Tybalt ve Benvolio sahne 1 dini simgeleri kakma ayrıntılı, mücevh
erlitabanca vardır, hareket 1'de atıfta; Benvolio "Kılıçlarınızı koy", bağırır (1.1.65),
kameraçalışması odaklanır onun tabanca ve-daha önemlisi-varil üzerine
kazınmış üreticinin etikette: Kılıç
9mm Serisi 5. Capulet onun "uzun kılıç" (1.1.75) için aradığında, hangi o
Longsword etiketli bir otomatik tüfek için biniyor limuzinin kapısı üzerinde ulaşır.
Luhrmann's film is full of such texts— gags, perhaps: the Post Haste mailing
company that Friar Lawrence uses to contact Romeo in Mantua; the Grove of
Sycamore, an abandoned movie theater by the beach where Romeo lurks at the
play's opening. In fact, the visual texture of the film is replete with allusions that
extend beyond the lines of Shakespeare's play to the texture of Shakespeare the
author and cultural icon: the Montague boys' taunting nuns with the line "bubble,
bubble, toil and trouble" in the opening scene; the Globe Theatre pool hall where
Romeo hangs out; a sign for "The Merchant of Verona Beach"; the billboard
slogan "I am thy Pistol and thy Friend" (2 Henry IV 5.3.93); "Prospero" scrawled on
a fence; perhaps even Lady Capulet's Elizabeth-Taylor-as-Cleopatra costume for
the ball.
Citing the text—the verbal text of the play, the cultural text of Shakespeare—
Luhrmann's film undertakes a shrewd reflection of the relation between classic
texts and their performances, presenting this version of Shakespeare's work not
as a performance of the text and not as a translation of the work but as an
iteration of the work, an iteration that necessarily invokes and displaces a
textual "origin" by performing the text in a specific citational environment—the
verbal, visual, gestural, and behavioral dynamics of youth culture, of MTV. Oyunun
metin sözlü metni gerekçe göstererek, Shakespeare-Luhrmann filmi kültürel
metin, metin bir performans olarak değil, Shakespeare'in çalışma bu sürümünü
sunmak, klasik metinler ve performansları arasındaki ilişkinin kurnaz bir
yansıması dertakes ve işin bir çeviri olarak değil işin bir iterasyon, mutlaka
çağırır ve gençlerin belirli bir citational çevre, görsel, gestural, sözel ve
davranışsal dinamikleri metin gerçekleştirerek bir metin "köken" yerinden bir
yineleme olarak kültür, MTV. The text inserted into Luhrmann's film fails to
transform the images into Shakespearean properties: like the word sword and
the pistol it labels, text and image stand in a dialectical relation of difference.
Romeo "-/-" Juliet cites the text of Romeo and Juliet, of Shakespeare, only to
dramatize that performances never cite texts. Fark diyalektik bir ilişki
içinde kelime kılıç ve etiket tabanca, metin ve görüntü stand gibi:Luhrmann filmi
takılı metin Shakespeare özellikleri içine görüntüleri dönüştürmek içinbaşarısızol
ur. Romeo ve Juliet, sadece gösteri asla metinleri alıntı olduğunu dramatize,
Romeo ve Juliet, Shakespeare'in metnini değinir.
Writing the script into the visual texture of the performance, Luhrmann lands
a palpable hit at the practice of performance analysis and at the disciplinary
framing of drama and performance studies. The film dramatizes the limitations of
conventional notions of dramatic performance; literalizing the text in
performance, it shows that the text cannot be staged as
performance.Performans görsel doku içine script yazma, Luhrmann toprakları pe
rformans analizipratik ve drama ve performans çalışmaları disiplin çerçeveleme
bir palpabl çarptı. Filmindramatik performans geleneksel anlayışların sınırlamalar
dramatizes; performans metinliteralizing, bu metin performans olarak sahnelene
n olamayacağını gösteriyor. The drama can be produced within a web of citation
—be it MTV, modern realism, the post-Brechtian-quasi-Method compromise of
most Shakespeare today, the authentic reconstructed woolens of the new Globe
—and it can be performed only by or as its surrogates. The surrogation of the
drama, the performing of the text within the regimes of contemporary behavior,
is not a betrayal of the play; it marks the ways—as Luhrmann's film
demonstrates—that dramatic performance, far from being authorized by its
script, produces the terms of its authorization in performance, raising (as all acts
of citation, reiteration, and surrogation do) these terms for inspection at the
moment it acts to conceal them.
Drama, çağdaş davranış rejimleri içinde metin yerine, bir surrogation oyun bir ih
anetdeğil, işaretleri yolları-Luhrmann filmi, bugüne kadar kendi komut
dosyası tarafındanyetkili olmanın-ki dramatik performans gösterdiğigibi üretir yü
kselterek performansyılında izin, bakımından (as alıntı, yineleme tüm eylemleri v
e surrogation yapmak) onlarıgizlemeye çalışır anda muayene için bu şart. As a
surrogate, the film memorializes a past (that it partly invents) and constitutes a
new work. Romeo "-/-" Juliet makes visible what most performances work to
conceal: that dramatic performance, like all other performance, far from
originating in the text, can only cite its textual "origins" with an additive gesture,
a kind of "+." Bir vekil olarak, film (kısmen icat olduğunuz) geçmiş anılar ve
yeni çalışma oluşturmaktadır. Romeo Juliet "-/-" en iyi
performanslarından gizlemeye çalışmak ne
görünür kılar: Yalnızca bir katkı jest ile metinsel "kökeni" alıntı olabilir, çok metin
menşeli tüm diğer performans gibi, bu dramatik performans bir türlü "+".

Notes
Earlier versions of this essay were discussed in a seminar at the 1997 Shakespeare Association annual
conference and by the Performance Analysis working group of the International Federation for
Theatre Research; I am grateful to both groups for their comments. I am especially grateful to
Shannon Steen for her detailed response and to Barbara Hodgdon for her comments on an earlier draft
and for providing me with a copy of her essay before its publication.
1 From E. K. Chambers through G. E. Bentley (Dramatist and Player) to Andrew Gurr (Playgoing and
Shakespearean Stage), Louis Montrose, Jean Howard, Stephen Orgel, and others, Shakespeare
studies has long been occupied with interpreting the material, economic, professional, and
ideological workings of Shakespeare's theater. This tradition has coexisted—sometimes uneasily
—alongside efforts to understand Shakespeare through the medium of performance. For an
overview of performance criticism of Shakespeare, see Thompson and Thompson; for a critique,
see Bulman, Shakespeare, Theory, and Performance and "On Being Unfaithful." The Applause
Shakespeare Library has recently enshrined the notion that the text contains all potential
(legitimate) performances. Each volume in the series offers "a continuous commentary on the
text" by an actor or director that "shows what is demanded from actors—line by line where
necessary—and points out what decisions about interpretation have to be made" (Brown vi). For a
brilliant reading of the politics of embodiment in Shakespearean film and stage performance, see
Hodgdon.
2 Performance studies owes much of its institutional formation to Richard Schechner, who in 1980
founded the department of performance studies at New York University, having moved there from
Tulane University in 1967, and who rechristened the Drama Review (which he brought to New York
from New Orleans) TDR: The Drama Review: The Journal of Performance Studies in 1988.
Schechner's extensive career in the theater, especially his experimental work with the
Performance Group in the 1960s and 1970s, has consistently involved the interplay among
dramatic, nontheatrical, and ritual performance. This relation is also central to his fertile
collaboration with the anthropologist Victor Turner, which culminated in Turner's influential book
From Ritual to Theatre (1982) and to Schechner's important essays on theatrical and nontheatrical
enactment and on the intersections of theatrical and social performance (see "Collective
Reflexivity" and Performance Theory; see also Roach, "Kinship" 218-20). Recently, Schechner has
modified this "string quartet" position (see "Theatre in the Twenty-First Century").
3 In an earlier article, "Queer Performativity," Sedgwick similarly undertakes to leverage the
performative away from "the notion of a performance in the defining instance theatrical" (2) and
to develop this sense of performativity through a reading of Henry James's The Art of the Novel.
4 Like the theater, "the performative has thus been from its inception already infected with
queerness" (Parker and Sedgwick 5), inspiring a conventional strain of antitheatrical prejudice as
well (see Barish).
5 Indeed, as Judith Butler suggests, the citation of legal precedents appears (even more than
dramatic theater) to ground the meaning of a particular act in a prior text, while it in fact deter-
mines the force of that text in the moment of the judge's performance, the act of citation: "it is
through the citation of the law that the figure of the judge's 'will' is produced and that the 'priority'
of textual authority is established" ("Critically Queer" 17).
6 For useful recent overviews of Geertz, see G. E. Marcus; Sewell.
7 Despite Conquergood's delicacy, it has become commonplace to associate an opposition to writing
both with the uses of performance by marginalized or dominated groups and with the practice of
performance studies as an academic discipline. As Conquergood remarked in his opening address
to the 1995 Performance Studies Conference, "Performance studies is a border discipline, an
interdiscipline, that cultivates the capacity to move between structures, to forge connections, to see
together, to speak with instead of simply speaking about or for others. Performance privileges
threshold-crossing, shape-shifting, and boundary-violating figures, such as shamans, tricksters,
and jokers, who value the carnivalesque over the canonical, the transformative over the
normative, the mobile over the monument '"Caravans" 137-38). This sense of the oppositionality of
performance studies is certainly open to question (see Auslander)—how useful is it to have
tricksters as colleagues, and what is it that their tactics are resisting?—as is the sense that
performance is always about a liberating, carnivalesque, or even socially progressive
transgression. Conquergood's sense that performance's affiliations with rhetoric locate
performance studies as "the new frontier for staking joint claims to poetics and persuasion,
pleasure and power, in the interests of community and critique, solidarity and resistance"
("Ethnography, Rhetoric" 80) might be set alongside George E. Marcus's reading of Douglas
Holmes's fieldwork among the European far right and of his sense of that group's exploitation of
"illicit discourse" (102-03). On performance studies' "foundational" opposition to texts, ■ Worthen,
"Disciplin ' Dolan, Response; Roach, Response; Schechner, Response; Zarrilli, Response; see
Roach, "Economies," and Dolan, "Geographies."
8 I am adapting Gary Taylor's sense of editorial practice as a science of proximity here, the sense
that an edited text asserts its authority by claiming to be "[p]roximate to something we value," a
value that is articulated by the form and content of the edition itself ("Renaissance" 129). On
editorial and performance theory, see Worthen, Shakespeare 1-43.
9 "Texts may obscure what performance tends to reveal: memory challenges history in the
construction of circum-Atlantic cultures, and it revises the yet unwritten epic of their fabulous
cocreation" (Cities 286).

Works Cited
Artaud, Antonin. "No More Masterpieces." The Theater and Its Double. Trans. Mary Caroline
Richards. New York: Grove, 1958. 74-83.
Auslander, Philip. "Evangelical Fervor." TDR: The Drama Review: The Journal of
Performance Studies 39.4 (1995): 178-83.
Austin, J. L. How to Do Things with Words. Ed. Marina Sbisa and J. O. Urmson. Cambridge:
Harvard UP, 1975.
Barish, Jonas. The Antitheatrical Prejudice. Berkeley: U of California P, 1981.
Bennett, Susan. Performing Nostalgia: Shifting Shakespeare and the Contemporary Past.
London: Routledge, 1996.
Bentley, Gerald Eades. The Profession of Dramatist in Shakespeare's Time. Princeton:
Princeton UP, 1971.
_______, The Profession of Player in Shakespeare's Time. Princeton: Princeton UP, 1984.
Berger, Harry, Jr. Imaginary Audition: Shakespeare on Stage and Page. Berkeley: U of
California P, 1989.
Berry, Ralph. On Directing Shakespeare: Interviews with Contemporary Directors. London:
Hamilton, 1989.
Bharucha, Rustom. Theater and the World: Performance and the Politics of Culture.
London: Routledge, 1993.
Bornstein, George, and Ralph G. Williams, eds. Palimpsest: Editorial Theory in the
Humanities. Ann Arbor: U of Michigan P, 1991.
Bristol, Michael D. Big-Time Shakespeare. London: Routledge, 1996.
_______, Shakespeare's America, America's Shakespeare. London: Routledge, 1990.
Brown, John Russell. "General Preface to the Applause Shakespeare Library." King Lear. Ed.
Brown. New York: Applause, 1996. v-vii.
Bulman, James. "On Being Unfaithful to Shakespeare: Miller, Marowitz, and Wesker."
Journal of Theatre and Drama 2 (1996): 59-73.
_______, ed. Shakespeare, Theory, and Performance. London: Routledge, 1996.
Butler, Judith. "Critically Queer." GLQ: A Journal of Gay and Lesbian Studies 1 (1993): 17-
32.
_______, Excitable Speech: A Politics of the Performative. New York: Routledge, 1997.
-------. Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity. New York: Routledge,
1990.
Carlson, Marvin. Performance: A Critical Introduction. London: Routledge, 1996.
Chambers, E. K. The Elizabethan Stage. Oxford: Clarendon, 1923.
Clifford, James. The Predicament of Culture: Twentieth-Century Ethnography, Literature,
and Art. Cambridge: Harvard UP, 1988.
Cohn, Ruby. Just Play: Beckett's Theater. Princeton: Princeton UP, 1980.
Cole, Catherine. "Sex and Death on Display: Women, Reproduction, and Fetuses at
Chicago's Museum of Science and Industry." TDR: The Drama Review: The Journal of
Performance Studies 37.1 (1993): 43-60.
Conquergood, Dwight. "Ethnography, Rhetoric, and Performance." Quarterly Journal of
Speech 78 (1992): 80-123.
_______, "Of Caravans and Carnivals: Performance Studies in Motion." TDR: The Drama
Review: The Journal of Performance Studies 39.4 (1995): 137-41.
_______, "Rethinking Ethnography: Towards a Critical Cultural Politics." Cultural
Monographs 58.2 (1991): 179-94.
Dawson, Anthony. Watching Shakespeare: A Playgoer's Guide. New York: St. Martin's,
1988.
Derrida, Jacques. "Signature Event Context." Margins of Philosophy. Trans. Alan Bass.
Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1982. 307-30.
Diamond, Elin. Introduction. Diamond, Performance 1-12.
-------, ed. Performance and Cultural Politics. London: Routledge, 1996.
Dionysus in 69. By the Performance Group. Ed. Richard Schech-ner. New York: Farrar, 1970.
Dolan, Jill. "Geographies of Learning: Theatre Studies, Performance, and the 'Performative.'"
Theatre Journal 45 (1993): 417-41.
_______, Response to W. B. Worthen's "Disciplines of the Text / Sites of Performance." TDR:
The Drama Review: The Journal of Performance Studies 39.1 (1995): 28-35.
Geertz, Clifford. The Interpretation of Cultures. New York: Basic, 1973.
Going, Going, Gone. Program. Magic Theatre, San Francisco. 7-18 May 1996.
Goldman, Michael. Acting and Action in Shakespearean Tragedy. Princeton: Princeton UP,
1988.
_______, Shakespeare and the Energies of Drama. Princeton: Princeton UP, 1972.
Grigely, Joseph. Textualerity: Art, Theory, and Textual Criticism. Ann Arbor: U of Michigan
P, 1995.
Gurr, Andrew. Play going in Shakespeare's London. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1987.
_______, The Shakespearean Stage, 1574-1642. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1980.
Hodgdon, Barbara. "Replicating Richard: Body Doubles, Body Politics." Theatre Journal 50
(1998): 207-25.
Howard, Jean. The Stage and Social Struggle in Early Modern England. London: Routledge,
1994.
Kapsalis, Terri. Public Privates: Performing Gynecology from Both Ends of the Speculum.
Durham: Duke UP, 1997.
Kauffmann, Stanley. "Blanking Verse." New Republic 2 Dec. 1996: 40+.
Landau, Tina. "Source-Work, the Viewpoints and Composition: What Are They?" Anne
Bogart: Viewpoints. Ed. Michael Bigelow Dixon and Joel A. Smith. Lyme: Smith,
1995. 13-30.
Lane, Anthony. "Tights! Camera! Action! What Does It Mean That the Bard Recently Hit No.
1 at the Box Office?" New Yorker 25 Nov. 1996: 65-77.
Limon, Jose. Dancing with the Devil: Society and Cultural Poetics in Mexican-American
South Texas. Madison: U of Wisconsin P, 1994.
Marcus, George E. "The Uses of Complicity in the Changing Mise-en-Scene of
Anthropological Fieldwork." Representations 59 (1997): 85-108.
Marcus, Leah S. Unediting the Renaissance: Shakespeare, Marlowe, Milton. London:
Routledge, 1996.
Masten, Jeffrey. Textual Intercourse: Collaboration, Authorship, and Sexualities in
Renaissance Drama. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1996.
McDonald, Marianne. Ancient Sun, Modern Light: Greek Drama on the Modern Stage. New
York: Columbia UP, 1992.
McGann, Jerome J. The Textual Condition. Princeton: Princeton UP, 1991.
Montrose, Louis. The Purpose of Playing: Shakespeare and the Cultural Politics of the
Elizabethan Theatre. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1996.
Murray, Timothy. Drama Trauma: Specters of Race and Sexuality in Performance, Video, and
Art. London: Routledge, 1997.
Orgel, Stephen. Impersonations: The Performance of Gender in Shakespeare's England.
Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1996.
Parker, Andrew, and Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick. Introduction. Performativity and Performance.
Ed. Parker and Sedgwick. New York: Routledge, 1995. 1-18.
Patraka, Vivian. "Spectacles of Suffering: Performing Presence, Absence, and Historical
Memory at U.S. Holocaust Museums." Diamond, Performance 89-107.
Phelan, Peggy. Unmarked: The Politics of Performance. London: Routledge, 1993.
Roach, Joseph. Cities of the Dead: Circum-Atlantic Performance. New York: Columbia UP,
1996.
_______, "Economies of Abundance." TDR: The Drama Review: The Journal of Performance
Studies 39.4 (1995): 164-65.
-------. "Kinship, Intelligence, and Memory as Improvisation:
Culture and Performance in New Orleans." Diamond, Performance 217-36.
_______, "Mardi Gras Indians and Others: Genealogies of American Performance." Theatre
Journal 44 (1992): 461-83.
_______, Response to W. B. Worthen's "Disciplines of the Text /
Sites of Performance." TDR: The Drama Review: The Journal of Performance Studies 39.1
(1995): 35-36.
Rouse, John. "Textuality and Authority in Theater and Drama: Some Contemporary
Possibilities." Critical Theory and Performance. Ed. Janelle G. Reinelt and Joseph R.
Roach. Ann Arbor: U of Michigan P, 1992. 146-57.
Savigliano, Marta E. Tango and the Political Economy of Passion. Boulder: Westview, 1995.
Schechner, Richard. "Collective Reflexivity: Restoration of Behavior." A Crack in the Mirror:
Reflexive Perspectives in Anthropology. Ed. Jay Ruby. Philadelphia: U of Pennsyl-
vania P, 1982. 39-81.
_______, "A New Paradigm for Theatre in the Academy." TDR: The Drama Review: The
Journal of Performance Studies 36.4 (1992): 7-10.
-------. Performance Theory. 1911. Rev. ed. New York: Routledge, 1988.
-------. Response to W. B. Worthen's "Disciplines of the Text /
Sites of Performance." TDR: The Drama Review: The Journal of Performance Studies 39.1
(1995): 36-38.
_______, "Theatre in the Twenty-First Century." TDR: The Drama Review: The Journal of
Performance Studies 41.2 (1997): 5-6.
Schneider, Rebecca. The Explicit Body in Performance. London: Routledge, 1997.
Sedgwick, Eve Kosofsky. "Queer Performativity: Henry James's The Art of the Novel." GLQ 1
(1993): 1-16.
Sewell, William H., Jr. "Geertz, Cultural Systems, and History: From Synchrony to
Transformation." Representations 59 (1997): 35-55.
Shakespeare, William. The Riverside Shakespeare. Ed. G. Blake-more Evans et al. 2nd ed.
Boston: Houghton, 1997.
Shillingsburg, Peter L. Scholarly Editing in the ComputerAge. Athens: U of Georgia P, 1986.
Strine, Mary S., Beverly Whitaker Long, and Mary Frances Hopkins. "Research in
Interpretation and Performance Studies: Trends, Issues, Priorities." Speech
Communication: Essays to Commemorate the Seventy-Fifth Anniversary of the
Speech Communication Association. Ed. Gerald M. Phillips and Julia T Wood.
Carbondale: Southern Illinois UP, 1990. 181-204.
Styan, J. L. Chekhov in Performance. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1971.
_______, The Shakespeare Revolution: Criticism and Performance in the Twentieth Century.
Cambridge: CambridgeUP, 1977.
Taplin, Oliver. Greek Tragedy in Action. Berkeley: U of California P, 1978.
Taussig, Michael. Mimesis and Alterity: A Particular History of the Senses. New York:
Routledge, 1993.
Taylor, Gary. Reinventing Shakespeare: A Cultural History from the Restoration to the Present.
New York: Oxford UP, 1991.
_______, "The Renaissance and the End of Editing." Bornstein and Williams 121-49.
Thompson, Marvin, and Ruth Thompson, eds. Shakespeare and the Sense of Performance:
Essays in the Tradition of Performance Criticism in Honor of Bernard Beckerman. Newark:
U of Delaware P; London: Associated UP, 1989.
Turan, Kenneth. Rev. of William Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet. Los Angeles Times 1 Nov.
1996: F1+.
Turner, Victor. From Ritual to Theatre: The Human Seriousness of Play. New York: Performing
Arts Journal, 1982.
Wall, Wendy. The Imprint of Gender: Authorship and Publication in the English Renaissance.
Ithaca: Cornell UP, 1993.
Warren, Roger. Staging Shakespeare's Late Plays. Oxford: Clarendon, 1990.
When We Dead Awaken. By Henrik Ibsen. Dir. Robert Wilson. Alley Theater, Houston. 22-
26 May 1991.
Whigham, Frank. Ambition and Privilege: The Social Tropes of Elizabethan Courtesy Theory.
Berkeley: U of California P, 1984.
Whitton, David. Moliere: Don Juan. Berkeley: U of California P, 1995.
William Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet. Dir. Baz Luhrmann. Perf. Leonardo DiCaprio and
Claire Danes. Twentieth Century Fox, 1996.
Worthen, W. B. "Disciplines of the Text / Sites of Performance." TDR: The Drama Review:
The Journal of Performance Studies 39.1 (1995): 13-28.
_______, Shakespeare and the Authority of Performance. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1997.
Zarrilli, Philip B. Response to W. B. Worthen's "Disciplines of the Text / Sites of
Performance." TDR: The Drama Review: The Journal of Performance Studies 39.1
(1995): 38-41.