Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://rportal.lib.ntnu.edu.tw:80/handle/77345300/44868
Title: 「旋轉呀旋轉—在向外擴張的旋渦中」
&Quot;&Quot;&Quot;Turning and Turning in the Widening Gyre&Quot;&Quot;
Other Titles: 在劇場人類學、表演研究及民族景藝學三個表演研究領域中表演轉向的折衝磋商
Negotiating the Performative Turn in the Three Disciplines of Performance Research--Theatre Anthropology, Performance Studies, and Ethnoscenology&Quot;
Authors: 國立臺灣師範大學英語學系
蘇子中
Issue Date: 2011
Abstract: 「旋轉呀旋轉—在向外擴張的旋渦中」1: 在劇場人類學、表演研究及民族景藝學三個表演研究領域中 表演轉向的折衝磋商 就像最近批評理論裡被廣泛討論的「倫理轉向」與「情感轉向」一般,「表演轉向」 也激起新一波對表演研究分析表演問題能力的再次評價。表演轉向是個在藝術、人文與 社會科學領域的典範轉向,並對諸如戲劇與劇場研究、表演研究、文化研究、性別研究、 人類學、考古學、語言學、哲學、歷史、社會學、民族誌學、民族學、族裔研究等學科 有極巨大的影響。表演轉向主要的關注點是「表演」這一個概念。如同Henry Bial 在《表 演研究讀本》一書中所定義的,「表演」這一詞彙「一般泛指有形的且有範圍的事件, 包含經排演過藝術行為的呈現」(57)。然而,「表演」這一詞彙也可被視為是指謝喜納 所謂「復原的行為」或僅僅只是任何被認為是「表演」的人類行為。隱藏於「表演轉向」 的是去概念化人類行為和去超越傳統不去質疑書寫文本與再現概念詮釋方法的需求。學 者與表演藝術工作者不再僅專注於現有的結構與文本,一致強調鮮活的現場演出以及個 人行為如何被事發片刻的脈絡賦予意義的重要性。於是表演這個概念提供一個分析社 會、文化與劇場現象的觀點。 正如同「表演轉向」是一個複雜、權宜、具爭議性且無法確切說明的論述與詮釋事 件,「表演研究」亦然。甚麼是表演?在「表演轉向」的脈絡下,劇場是甚麼?劇場的 目的為何?是否有共通的表演原則?表演者如何獲取觀眾的注意力?這波「表演轉向」 將導向何方?表演轉向的目的是否在達到「某種啟發」,某種精神上或肉體上的覺醒, 就如同Dervish 旋轉舞蹈所企圖成就的心醉神迷狀態?或這轉向會導致表演研究領域的 分崩離析與造成「無政府狀態蔓延於世界」的後果?這許多的問題都是我們必須面對處 理的,無論我們的身分是表演者、觀眾、導演、批評家或是學者。 會讓三個主要的表演研究學科—劇場人類學、表演研究與民族景藝學—既引人入勝 又讓人無法抗拒的原因是它們有共同的主張,亦即表演研究領域具有跨—學科或穿越— 學科的本質。假如這三個學科能激發新一代表演研究者的興趣,這是因為它們一致拒絕 以武斷教條的方式說理,取而代之的是認識論上的開放性,允許接受珍貴的學術溝通協 商、交換與創新。在此同時,在表演研究領域裡關於理論、方法與實踐的爭辯在兩派學 者間燎原,一派激烈要求一種更有焦點的表演研究,另一派則認可具越界能力和具遼闊 視野的研究方法。 Eugenio Barba 和他的追隨者在他們持續不懈的努力裡,將劇場人類學研究的方向鎖 定在表演前的身體狀態。在《劇場人類學辭典》中,劇場人類學的定義是:「在表演情境中,人類社會文化和生理機能行為的研究」(6)。相對於Barba 的畫定界線,部分表演 理論家與批評家則跟隨Richard Schechner 的帶領,廣開善門支持表演研究「具遼闊視野 的研究方法」,其目的在調查研究林林總總的活動,這些活動包括表演藝術、儀式、治 療、運動、大眾娛樂和日常生活的表演—任何潛在表達行為或文化展演的例子。在此同 時,另外一部份人則採用Jean-Marie Pradier 所主張的民族景藝學的方法學,堅持將科學 學科(諸如神經科學與認知科學)、人文學科、表演者的實際知識和適切的在地典範帶進 這個領域,來研究全球不同族裔團體和文化社群的「組織化的人類表演行為」。 本計畫試圖探索隱藏於表演轉向的問題並研究在三個表演研究學科中—劇場人類 學、表演研究與民族景藝學—所產生分歧的詮釋與研究方法。儘管在許多點上有交集, 這三個表演研究學科也各自為表演研究領域提供不同的典範。本計畫旨在追溯描繪各個 學科獨特的系譜路徑,但也同時揭發它們如何相互滋養。在本三年期的計畫中,筆者打 算在層層疊疊的主題與議題中挑選三個表演研究的面向來作進一步的討論;同時也試圖 找出能進一步掌握表演概念與表演研究領域的方式。 本三年期計畫的第一年計畫是「表演研究的失和分歧?著手處理/挪用/磋商/區別在 Eugenio Barba 的劇場人類學、Richard Schechner 的表演研究and Jean-Marie Pradier 的民 族景藝學裡的『表演』」,筆者將會討論在三個學科裡的交集點與對立點。其目的不只是 繪製紀錄某些從表演概念分出的理論根莖脈絡層次並將這三個學科置於此根莖脈絡 中,也是去強調表演研究的複雜性。接著筆者將試圖去討論、評估和批判它們共同的關 注點與分歧差異性。最後,筆者將重新評價它們對表演研究領域的貢獻。 在本計畫的第二年計畫中—「印度之旅:在Grotowski、Barba 與Schechner 表演理 論中劇場田野調查和人類-民族-景藝-學所扮演的角色」—筆者有兩個研究目標:第一個 目標著重於探索並反思劇場田野研究的行動本身與其重要性,並檢視田野研究與景藝 學、人類學與民族學研究的相關性;第二個目標則著重於分析「印度之旅」對Grotowski、 Barba 與Schechner 的重要性,同時也進一步調查研究印度劇場和宗教祭儀對形塑他們 三人表演理論的影響。 在本計畫的第三年計畫中—「神經、情感和能量:太陽神經叢在表演藝術中的功能 與重要性」—筆者的目的是去討論太陽神經叢在形塑表演者身體的重要性與效力。本計 畫試圖論證太陽神經叢並不僅只是一個神經、血管或淋巴管交錯的網絡,而是一複雜同 時也是生命驅力、情感與能量相互連繫的系統,這系統持續支配並塑造表演者身體的景 藝生命。 在方法學方面,為了要能更確切理解表演轉向是一種論述實踐的作為與更確切深入 評估以上所述三個學科對表演研究的影響,本計畫擬從傅柯知識形成與生產的觀點出 發,採用傅柯系譜學與「論述分析」(discourse analysis)的方法來檢視、評價表演研究的 三個重要面向。除此之外,本計畫將採用德勒茲和瓜達里所主張哲學與批評理論的「理 論工具箱」作法,活用手邊現有的理論工具—不論是現代主義、後結構主義、精神分析、 人類學、社會學或民族誌學的理論—來詮釋、耙梳匯集各路思想的表演研究,穿越並重 新評價表演的概念。但一般而言,傅柯的思想、理論和方法學將會是筆者主要參考、援 引與運用的範圍與對象。
“Turning and Turning in the Widening Gyre”1: Negotiating the Performative Turn in the Three Disciplines of Performance Research-- Theatre Anthropology, Performance Studies, and Ethnoscenology Like the recent ethical turn or affective turn in critical theory, the performative turn has inspired a reevaluation of performance research’s capacities to analyze performance problematics. It is a paradigm shift in the arts, the humanities and social sciences that has exerted a great impact on disciplines such as drama and theatre studies, performance studies, cultural studies, gender studies, anthropology, archaeology, linguistics, philosophy, history, sociology, ethnography, ethnology, ethnic studies, etc. The major concern of the performative turn is the notion of performance. The term “performance,” as Henry Bial defines in The Performance Studies Reader, “most commonly refers to a tangible, bounded event that involves the presentation of rehearsed artistic actions” (57). It, however, can also be identified as what Richard Schechner calls “restored behavior” or “twice-behaved behavior” or simply be considered as any human behavior “performed.” Underlying the performative turn is the need to conceptualize human behaviors and to go beyond the traditional methods of interpretation that did not problematize written texts and the notion of representation. Instead of focusing solely on given structures and texts, scholars/practitioners stress the active and moment-by-moment presentation as well as the way that individual behavior is determined by the context in which it occurs. The notion of performance thus provides a perspective for analyzing social, cultural, and theatrical phenomena. Just as the performative turn is a complex, contingent, contested, and hard to pin down discursive and interpretive event, so too is performance research. There is a performative dimension to any act of human behavior. What then is performance? What is theatre in this context? What is theatre for? Are there common principles of performance? How does a performer engage the attention of the spectator? Where does this turn to performance lead to? Does it aim to reach “some revelation,” some spiritual or physical awareness with a trancelike state as that being achieved by Dervish whirling dance? Or does the turn cause performance research disciplines to “fall apart” and result in “mere anarchy” which “is loosed upon the world”?2 Many of these questions are what we have to engage with, either as performers, spectators, directors, critics, or scholars. What makes the three prominent disciplines of performance research—theatre anthropology, performance studies, and ethnoscenology—intriguing and yet overwhelming is that they share the same proposition that the field of performance research is inter-disciplinary or trans-disciplinary in nature. If these three disciplines have provoked such an interest among the new generations of performance researchers, it is because they all refuse to manifest themselves dogmatically, offering instead an epistemological opening capable of permitting valuable academic negotiation, exchange and innovation. Meanwhile, debates over theory, method, and practice in the field of performance research flare between scholars who vie for more focused study of performance on the one hand, and those who endorse more transgressive and broad spectrum approaches on the other. Eugenio Barba and his followers locate their study of the pre-expressive scenic bios in their insistent pursuit of theatre anthropology which is defined in A Dictionary of Theatre Anthropology as “the study of human beings’ socio-cultural and physiological behavior in a performance situation” (6). In contrast to Barba’s delimitation, some performance theoreticians and critics, following Richard Schechner’s lead, open up the door even wider by endorsing “the broad spectrum approach”3 in performance studies which aims to investigate a variety of activities including the performing arts, rituals, healing, sports, popular entertainments, and performance in everyday life—potentially any instance of expressive behavior or cultural enactment. Meanwhile others, adopting the methodology of ethnoscenology as proposed by Jean-Marie Pradier, insist on bringing together scientific disciplines (such as neuroscience and cognitive science), humanities, performers’ practical knowledge, and the proper local paradigm to study “the organized human performance behaviors” (OHPB) of diverse ethnic groups and cultural communities around the globe. This project seeks to explore the problematics embedded in the performative turn and investigate the diverging performance accounts and methodologies of in the three disciplines of performance research—theatre anthropology, performance studies, and ethnoscenolog. While they converge at many points, these three disciplines offer at least three divergent paradigms for the field of performance research. This project purports to trace their distinctive genealogical paths while exposing the way they cross-fertilize each other. In this three-year project, of all the layers of themes and issues, I intend to deal with three unique aspects of performance research and find ways through which we can have a better grasp of the notion performance and the field of performance research itself. In my first-year project—entitled “The Rift in Performance Research? Approaching/Appropriating/Negotiating/Differentiating ‘Performance’ in Eugenio Barba’s Theatre Anthropology, Richard Schechner’s Performance Studies, and Jean-Marie Pradier’s 3 Schechner has long advocated a broad spectrum approach. In his article “Performance Studies: the Broad Spectrum Approach” in The Performance Studies Reader, he argues: “I believe that if the study of performance does not expand and deepen, going far beyond both the training of performance workers and the Western tradition of drama and dance, the whole academic performing arts enterprise constructed over the past half-century or so will collapse. The happy alternative is to expand our vision of what performance is, to study it not only as art but as a means of understanding historical, social, and cultural processes” (9). Ethnoscenology”—I will address the points of intersection and opposition among the three disciplines at issue. Its purpose is not only to chart some layers of the theoretical rhizome branched out form the notion of performance and to situate the three disciplines in this rhizomatic context but also to highlight the complexities of performance research. I will then attempt to discuss, assess, and critique their shared concern and diverging difference. Finally, I will re-evaluate their contribution to the field of performance research. In the second-year project—entitled “A Passage to India: Theatre Fieldwork and Anthropo-Ethno-Sceno-logy in the Performance Theories of Grotowski, Barba, and Schechner”—my purpose has two fronts: the first is to explore and reflect the act and significance of theatre fieldwork and examine its relevance to the studies of scenology, anthropology, and ethnology; the second is to analyze the significance of “the trip to India” to Grotowski, Barba, and Schechner and then to further investigate the impact of Indian theatre and religious practices on their formulation of performance theories. In my third-year project—entitled “Nerves, Affect, and Energy: The Use and Significance of the Solar Plexus in the Performing Arts”—my purpose is to discuss the importance and efficacy of the solar plexus in shaping a performer’s body. It attempts to argue that the solar plexus is not just a network of intersecting nerves, blood vessels, or lymphatics but also a complex and interconnected system of drive, affect, and energy which continues to dominate and fashion the scenic bios of the performer’s body. Methodologically speaking, in order to better appreciate the performative turn as a discursive practice and evaluate in depth the full swing of the impact exerted by the three disciplines mentioned above on the study of performance, this project seeks to examine the three crucial aspects of performance research from a Foucauldian perspective of knowledge formation and production, and by employing the Foucauldian method of genealogy and discourse analysis. In addition, in this project, prompted by Deleuze and Guattari’s insistence on philosophy and critical theory as a tool-box, I will approach performance research as a reservoir of thought and make a contribution to our trans-evaluation of the notion of performance by drawing on various theory-tools at hand, be it modernist, post-structuralist, psychoanalytical, anthropological, sociological, or ethnographic. Generally speaking, Foucauldian thinking, theories, and methodology will be our major frame of reference and application framework.
URI: http://rportal.lib.ntnu.edu.tw/handle/77345300/44868
Other Identifiers: ntnulib_tp_B0211_04_007
Appears in Collections:教師著作

Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.