Identity is a very personal thing. Yet, at the same time, our identities are tied up in how we behave with others. Labeling ourselves with particular identities gives us a sense of purpose, or a sense of self. Yet, we aren’t the only ones doing the labeling. And a lot of us, at times, feel a bit unsure about who we are and where we are going in life. This is because, no matter how personal our identities are, we are connected to other people and to society and at least part of our identity cannot be separated from that.
That connection between our self and others is a process of communication. The things that help us define who we are; things like family, culture, gender, religion, academic achievement—all of these are things that we learned about through communication with others. And all of these are labels and identity constructs that we give ourselves and present to others using communication. Consider this example of Harajuku girls in Tokyo, gathering at Harajuku station.
Ultimately, through this communication process, identity is a choice. For example, some ways we identify ourselves are through cultural categories, everyday experiences, and role playing. But this choice remains tied to the cultural categorizations that we function within. These cultural categories label people as their race, their gender, their ability status, or any similar category. And then people act out the social norms (normal behaviors) associated with those categories. In other words, we respond to the communication processes and the rhetoric of society that constructs us. We choose to do this—we can resist—but few of us catch on to how much resistance is possible.
Performance Studies as a means of Investigation
Within the field of Communication Studies, one concentration or area of focus is Performance Studies, which focuses on how people present their identities through symbolic and performed communication practices. While theories and models from all three paradigms can and have been applied to Performance Studies, the logic of this field is situated between Interpretation (understanding how the performances of identity and culture work and what they represent) and Critical Theory (pointing out how flexible identities and realities actually are and finding ways to encourage changes to social norms through performance critique). Performance studies looks at the representations of identities in theatre, art, and popular culture, sports, ritual behaviors, and the presentations of self in everyday life (Alexander, Anderson, & Gallegos, 2005; Conquergood, 2002; Schechner, 2002).
As discussed in module 2, Schechner (1969) argues that performance should be seen as a means of critical-cultural analysis of everyday life, not just theatre and stage arts, because performance methods can reveal how people follow the scripts that are tied to the identities they choose to perform. Schechner’s arguments for the academic field of performance studies drew in many scholars from various interdisciplinary fields who looked at performance through different lenses. Grounding performance studies in established work from these various academic subject areas quickly allowed performance studies to evolve as a field. One of the earliest scholars with influence in performance studies is Aristotle, who provided the rhetorical theory of dramatic action (335? B.C.E./1998). He argued that individuals and groups use language and ritual to forge memberships and drive social action. The ritual behaviors, for Aristotle, are often driven by tragedy, which is then performed and re-performed as a means of establishing connective ties between individuals, thereby persuading people to generate social, behavioral, and communication norms.
Rhetorical scholar Kenneth Burke (1945/1969) built on this ideology with his theory of dramatism. Burke focuses on the similarities between rhetoric and theatre, viewing theatrical and real life dramas, which he considers very much the same way that Aristotle viewed tragedy, as forms of persuasion. Burke sets up a dramatistic pentad to explain the process of how dramatism works, using theatre-based language to illustrate the steps of the process:
Act: What happened? What is the action? What is going on? What action; what thoughts?
Scene: Where is the act happening? What is the background situation?
Agent: Who is involved in the action? What are their roles?
Agency: How do the agents act? By what means do they act?
Purpose: Why do the agents act? What do they want?
In a similar vein, folklorist Victor Turner (1982) looks at performance as ritual behavior that can illustrate social beliefs and processes. Turner argues that we need to look at the event surrounding a performance, not the act itself, and the negotiation that happens between performance and audience. Performance events are a way that a culture or group creates meaning and presents that meaning to itself and others. For Turner, the performance is “making, not faking” (p. 93) meaning that the performance itself is both real, reflects a social real, and provides the opportunity to generate social change. The performance allows potential change because it is a type of ritual, and therefore goes through a ritual process that includes three primary steps: separation, liminality, and reintegration. Separation is how the performer and the audience are temporarily removed from the real world during the event. Liminality is the “betwixt and between” nature of the performance event itself, especially in terms of how it creates a non-real but temporary space. It is in this space where change can happen, between the separation and incorporation stages. Reintegration is when the event ends, and real life becomes dominant again.
Consider a trip to Las Vegas as an example. When you leave with your family or friends for the trip, you are separated from your daily life. When you are in Vegas, you are in a liminal space where anything can happen...and you may change in the process. What happens in Vegas doesn’t always stay in Vegas. When the trip is over you reintegrate into daily life. These performance events are identity-building processes, for Turner. In the following image, consider the liminality of the image and its avant-garde nouveau elements, depicting the fantasy and liminal place Las Vegas creates and produces, "What happens in Vegas stays in Vegas."
For linguist and anthropologist Claude Levi-Strauss (1979), performance reveals culture. He argues that performances act like masks or mimicry that illustrate aspects of culture for an audience. Anthropologist Clifford Geertz (1973) similarly argues that performance reveals deeper meanings about culture, particularly as a means of expressing cultural truths, issues, and conflicts without having to act them out directly. Communication scholar Richard Bauman (1989) argues that performance is transformative, that its significance lies in its ability to transform social realities and structures. In agreement with Turner, Bauman argues that performance is expressive and emergent, and thus it creates.
The social scripts we follow provide us with guidelines for behavior and limits on our own personal creativity. Yet, some argue that we don’t have to follow those guidelines. Some people perform their identities along very socially prescribed lines…they work hard to “fit in” to societal norms, also known as the expected and familiar script(s) to perform. Others resist these norms, and perform their identities in ways that attack and challenge normal societal behaviors. And many of us perform our selves using a combination of both of these schemes, whether consciously or subconsciously. We communicate based on both societal expectations and our own values and ideals.
References
Alexander, B.K., Anderson, G.L., & Gallegos, B.P. (2005). Introduction: Performance in education. In B.K. Alexander, G.L. Anderson, & B.P. Gallegos, (Eds.) Performance theories in education: Power, pedagogy, and the politics of identity, pp. 1-14. New York: Routledge.
Aristotle. (1998). Aristotle's Poetics (S. Halliwell, Trans.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Original work published 335? B.C.E.
Bauman, R. (1989). American folklore studies and social transformation: A performance-centered perspective. Text and Performance Quarterly, 9, 3, 175-184.
Burke, K. (1969). A grammar of motives. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Original work published 1945.
Conquergood, D. (2002). Performance studies: Interventions and radical research. TDR: The Drama Review, 46, 2, 145-156.
Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures. New York: Basic Books.
Levi-Strauss, C. (1979). The effectiveness of symbols. In W. Lessa, & E. Vogt, (Eds.) The reader in comparative religions, (pp. 318-327). New York: Harper and Row.
Schechner, R. (2002). Performance studies: An introduction, 3rd edition.New York: Routledge.
Schechner, R. (1969). Speculations on Radicalism, Sexuality, & Performance. The Drama Review: TDR, 89-110.
Turner, V. (1982). From ritual to theatre. New York: PAJ Publications.
