Reading Response: Performativity From Schechner, R., Performance Studies: An Introduction

Written on Sep 16, 2017

Due to its widespread usage in various fields, performativity allows a wide range of meanings, which makes it difficult to acquire a specific definition. Therefore, the author introduces some essential terms and incidences in both the theories and practices of performativity as a substitute of direct definition. In this chapter, firstly, we are able to grasp the history of performativity by looking at J. L. Austin’s performative utterance and J. R. Searle’s speech acts; then, the author closely examines reality TV and simulation, and how they play into the development of performativity; additionally, postmodernism and poststructuralism are explained in detail, as to their definition and how they serve as the practical and theoretical foundations of performativity; lastly, the construction of gender and race is highlighted as the examples of identity construction theory, which is the primary social function of performativity from the author’s point of view. In short, performativity emphasizes that every social activity is a showing of doing, with actors and spectators both being actively involved.

In 1955, J. L. Austin, a linguistic philosopher first coined the term “performative”, and used it to describe the nature of utterances as “performing of action”. His student J. R. Searle developed his inventive conception and proposed “speech act” as the basic unit of communication in the 1960s. Whereas their contributions to the establishment of this new field are acknowledged in this chapter, they both failed building any connection between theatrical or fictional reality and real-life reality. The author uses Maya-lila notion of reality and a theatrical romance example to refute Austin’s opinion that “performative utterances in theatre are all under false circumstances”; additionally, the author also seeks scholarly support from Derrida, who argues that language in theatre is only a modification of daily speaking, and truthfulness exists in theatre within their space and time. To further draw forth the liminal space between the performativity of theatrical performance and real-life, artistic practices that explore the interplay of fiction and reality during or even before 1960s are taken as examples to pin down the limitation of Searle’s theory. The evidence from both practical and theoretic aspects well serves the arguments in these sections. However, I would suggest these two terms be put together in one section in the book, since they are closely related and share similar weaknesses.

Following the discussion of fabricated reality and real reality, the author takes on further building connections in the age of digital media. Reality TV starting from the turn of the century is probably the most groundbreaking invention, in which fiction and reality are mingled and blended. After Survivor, the first reality show in the US, large capitals were put into this type of entertainment, and webcam also entered the game. As the author argues, they exploited general public’s desire to want to be part of something and their voyeurism. Gradually, average people became more and more active in broadcasting their lives too, on their own, for example Jennicam, which effectively proves people’s willingness to act in front of the others, and that the others’ observation indeed impacts the actor’s behavioral outcome. Using the example of an ordinary individual makes the author’s viewpoint particularly relatable, and also prepares for the following conversation on postmodernism and its anti-authorism. Another practice is simulation, also accompanied by digital technology development. Two layers of simulation are mentioned. One is a complete replication where original and copy defies distinction, two is what can be regarded as indistinguishable to the original one in a chronological sense. Two stories are mentioned, Baudrillard’s sickness and Shaman practice, as examples for the latter. What adds to the confusion is the most effective and influential types of simulation, i.e. military war games, and scientific experiments. It seems to be self-contradictory, because apparently, one can easily distinguish between these kinds of simulations from the reality. The author might want to add that, in these scenarios, simulations are used as a device to approach the real matter when keeping the cost reasonable.

Simulation blurs authorship. Postmodernism (practice) and poststructuralism / deconstruction (theory) defies authorism in the same way. And they are the foundation of the practice and theory of performativity, which is centered on power struggle. In terms of practice, power struggle, the subversive quality and tolerance of contradictions are put forward among the characteristics of postmodernism, which is derived from the theoretic analysis by Jean-Francois Lyotard, Linda Hutcheon and Fredric Jameson. In terms of theory, the author put much emphasis on text and that writings are constant struggles for authorship and power, which is mostly based upon Jacques Derrida’s article in 1988. I personally find the deduction problematic, for the author states in the beginning that performativity is not easy to pin down due to its wide usage, but here he uses only poststructuralism in writing to prove perhaps the most important points in the whole chapter. Also, the reference seems to be outdated, as performativity is really a product taking off around 2000. The author also raises awareness that destruction of master narrative brings compression and fragmentation, and asks what if the big institutions use performative devices to gain control over knowledge. These are wonderful concerns. However, the author falls short on giving any effective comments afterwards. Also, as pointed out in the book, the problem with poststructuralism is its small-scale influence and it mostly is constrained in ivory tower.