Something that particularly struck me in Carlson’s
introduction is the idea that “a consciousness of ‘performance’ can move from
the stage, from ritual, or from other special and clearly defined cultural
situations, into everyday life. Everyone at some point or another is conscious
of ‘playing a role’ socially” (4). This leads to the thought that the
difference between “doing” and “performing” is simply attitude, a consciousness
of action. But is simply being aware in everyday life that you are “playing a
role” in order to achieve something specific (to be accepted, to take charge,
to receive help from someone, etc) enough to be considered a performance? Or is
it also necessary to have a conscious audience to consider something a
performance? This whole concept is fascinating to me, because I think the
relationship between psychology, sociology, and acting is so interesting and
closely woven, and this idea of Carlson’s blurs the lines even further between
performance and what is just basic human activity.
So, when we look at performance in this blurred state, when
the traditional conventions are somewhat thrown to the wind and the lens of
performance is focused more on real life than a staged environment, I am curious
about the role of the audience. In the traditional conventions, we place a
distinction between rehearsal and performance; it is the addition of an
audience that transforms a rehearsal into a performance. Does this remain true
when the concept of performance is moved into everyday life?
Reality TV is an example of an event that represents this
challenge for me. Here is a clip
from Real Housewives of New Jersey:
These are people who are completely conscious of the fact
that their lives are being filmed whether or not they are completely conscious
of all their actions. Does taking real life, filming it, framing it and editing
it in a particular way, and then broadcasting it on TV make it a performance?
It has an audience; it shows people seemingly conscious of “playing a role” in
society. In that sense, according to one of Carlson’s theories, it could be
considered a performance.
What if the cameras were stripped away, and none of these
people’s lives were aired on TV, would it then cease to be a performance?
Stripping this idea down even further, can something still be a performance if
it is for only one person and that one person is the performer? For example,
singing in the shower; it is a display of skill (or lack there of, depending),
but if it is only for yourself, does it then became something other than performance?
To ponder at an answer to my own question; I think
performance is, in essence, for someone outside of yourself. Considering that
Carlson’s other theories on performance all include an audience or spectator of
some kind, I don’t think it’s a stretch to say he may feel the same way. Performance is a chance to change,
shape, or focus another’s perception of something, to affect someone else. Bert
States, in his article “Great Reckonings” talks about “theater as a process of
meditation between artist and culture, speaker and listener; theater becomes a
passageway for a cargo of meanings being carried back to society” (6). To cut
out an audience is to cut out half of that process.
States also mentions in his article that theatre is like an organism,
which receives its nourishment from the world, adapts to cultural climate and
conditions, eventually exhausting itself and dying, like generations replacing
one another (13). With this in mind, it makes sense that our way of defining
performance is forever in flux; the moment that we nail it down to mean one
particular thing and cling to that definition, that is the moment that Peter Brook
might suggest that theatre moves from being deadly to plain old dead.
The difficulty I have with the question is the ambiguity surrounding the very notion of "self" and "other." Is there "otherness" within the "self"? If so, can one part of the self perform for another? To elucidate what I am driving at, in Jungian psychology, there is a distinction between the "persona" and the "self." The persona is a complicated system of relationships between the individual consciousness and the world within which it is embedded. It is a kind of mask that one wears to protect the ego. This raises a question: insofar as we are aware of the distinction between self and persona and insofar as we continue engaging the world behind the mask of the persona, does this constitute a performance? I believe it does. Further, this type of performance need not include "others" in the sense of other people because within the subject himself there appears to be a type of "otherness."
ReplyDeleteAnother way to think about the self comes to us from Eastern philosophy. In Indian Vedanta, for instance, one's true self is called the Atman. The Atman is the true self of an individual and it transcends all identification with the particular phenomena of one's life. When one ceases to identify oneself with the particulars of their existence, and realizes that their true identity (Atman - i.e. transcendent Self) is identical with the universe (Brahman), one achieves liberation (moksha). Upon achieving this realization, one may simply continue on with his or her particular existence with a kind of double consciousness. In other words, one goes through life with a "consciousness of doubleness" - i.e. consciousness of themselves as Atman and consciousness of themselves in the particular role that they play in time and space.
For Martin Heidegger however, there is no such thing as a transcendental self. Heidegger’s chose not to speak about the human person with the word self, and instead used the word, ‘Dasein’, which literally means ‘Being-there." For Heidegger, the human person can only taken into account as a being in the middle of a world among other things. In other words, "to be there" is to exist in the world - this particular world - in this time - in this space. To be human is to be fixed, embedded and immersed in the physical, literal and tangible world. Thus the self, is less like an autonomous solid essence, and more like a web of relations - i.e. a field of concern. Like Nietzsche, he saw the religious appeal to a transcendent self or soul as pernicious and nihilistic in that it negates the importance of "this" world.
I do however think that Heidegger's philosophy would still be open to Carlson's notion of performance as "consciousness of doubleness." I think it might have something to do with his notion of authenticity. An authentic existence can only come into being when one realizes of who they as distinctive from the masses. Once this occurs, one's concern with the world will no longer be to do what everyone else is doing. His concern can become "authentic" and directed towards his unique potentiality in the world. Only then can the human person become "its self." Though he doesn't appeal to a transcendent self, Heidegger's notion of an authentic self does presuppose an inauthentic self. The distinction between these two modes of being may be the place where we can find our "consciousness of doubleness." And once again, I believe that this awareness can occur without the presence of other people.
I am interested in the fact that you used the Real Housewives of New Jersey as an example of what a performance is. As a huge fan of The Real Housewives franchise I often ask myself why is it that I feel so drawn and connected to these women and their lives. Coming from the perspective of an audience member of that particular show, I would most definitely agree that The Real Housewives of New Jersey is certainly a performance. The cameras and editing are aspects of the show that heighten the stakes for the women involved. The cameras surround them with a consciousness that what they are doing is for a mass audience. Would you want to watch a woman going on a shopping spree at the Gap or would you rather watch a woman go on a shopping spree at Chanel? Probably many wouldn’t care to watch either, but the housewife’s conscious decision to have a shopping spree at Chanel is part of her performance as a real housewife and a decision probably made because of the cameras that surround her.
ReplyDeleteAs for the question, “Is it a performance if only one person is present?” I would have to say that that is left up to the performer. However in the case of the Real Housewives, without cameras they are just real women. I do not believe that a performance is a performance with out an audience, this is because I believe that when we are alone we a consciously ourselves. We sing in the shower for our own pleasure, not for the pleasure of others, therefore removing that idea of “consciousness of doubleness” from ourselves.