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 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
*
PMLA, Vol. 113, No. 5 (Oct., 1998), pp. 1093-1107.
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 (Daw-
son 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 gö zlemlediği gibi, metin ve performansın bu bakış
açısı performansı, tiyatral anlamın kaynağı ya da ö zgü n tabanı olarak da bilinen dramatic metin ile
olan ilişkisini “zorunlu” ya da “tü remiş” 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 gü ndemi” çalışmalarının (Roach, Cities xii) dramatic performansı, sadece
dramatic yazımın bir yan etkisi olarak gö rmek ya da metinlerin ö nceliğ ini 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 gerginliğ in doğ masıyla,
performance çalışmaları hızla gelişen, araştırmalarında birçok amaç, yö ntem ve hedef
belirleyerek ilerleyen performans çalışmaları zemin değ iştirmektedir: performansın etnografyası
(Conquergood, "Ethnography, Rhetoric" and "Rethinking Ethnography"; Limon; Taussig);
psikoanalitik (Phelan) ve sunumun post-sö mü rgesel modelleri (Bharucha; Savigliano); enstitü
çalışmaları (Cole; Patraka); sokak performansı çalışmaları (Roach, "Mardi Gras Indians"),
performans sanatı (Schneider) ve gü nlü k 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). Richard Schechner TDR’de bilinen bir ö neri ö ne surer:
"[T]iyatro, bizim bildiğimiz ve ortaya koyduğumuz gibi-yazılı dramaların sahnelenmesi- 21. yü zyılın
sıralı dö rtlü sü olacaktır: değerli fakat oldukça sınırlı bir tü r, performansın altbö lü mü ” ("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 yanıldığ ı için değ il, tam tersi haklı olduğ u için Performans çalışmaları ve dramatic
çalışmalar araştırmacılarının dramatic performansı nasıl gö rdü kleri ö nemlidir. 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 ü zerinde çizilmiş bir dizi uzman ü retimdir.
It may be that at this moment 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 kü ltü rel ü retim tarihinde,
oyunların performansı kalıcıdır ki bu diğ er performans tü rlerini daha dayanıklı, muhalif ve
belirgin bir şekilde birleştirebilen metinsel ve kü ltü rel bir sö ylem ile tamamen çizilen bir tü e
ü retim 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 olduğ u, çeşitliliğin boşalmış çeşidi olduğ u ve
(uzman) dü zenleme sü reci boyunca ortaya çıkan belirsizlik olduğ u 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 gö rebilmek 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 ö zel anlamalardan tü retilen zaman aşımına
uğ ramış incelemeler olarak gö rse de, Austin herkesin bildiğ i 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 sö ylemi tuhaf bir şekilde
“boş”-“edimsel sö zce, ö rneğ in, sahnede bir aktö r tarafından dile getirilirse tuhaf bir şekilde boş
ya da gereksiz olacaktır”(22)- bir temsilcinin (“belirli dü şü nceleri ya da duyguları olan
insanlar”) hareketlerini de içeren yersiz sö zcelerin ö zel bir sınıfı ö rneklediğ i kadarıyla
samimiyetsiz ya da doğ rudan sonraki davranışlarda (bu bağ lamda bir sö zce eğ er “bir şiirde ya
da monolog konuşmada bulunursa boş olabilir.”(22))şekillenmediğ ini sö yler. 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 bö yle boş bir sö zceyi dü şü nceden kesinlikle ayırır çü nkü o dili normal (dil)
kullanımı ü zerinde “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 kü çü mseme yaklaşımı-kime gö re boş?hangi anlamda?- edebi çalışmaları
edimselliğe ve performansa yö neltmesine 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 perfor-
mative instance" (2). Andrew Parker ve Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick, ö rneğ in, Austin’i edebi
çalışmalar ve “sahne ü zerinde” edimselliğ i ortaya koymuş olan performans çalışmaları (1): “bu
değ erlendirmenin 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 ö nyargıya rağ men, 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 sö yleminden ayırmasında sahnenin “içi boş” alıntılama ö zelliği ü zerinde performatif
sö yleyişe 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 bö lgesini Austin’in “normal” ve
solmuş performansı arasındaki karşıtlığ ı yıkarak, sö zlü performatif ve tiyatral arasında: tiyatral
olmayan konuşma otantik ve tekrarlanamazmış gibi
performatif konuşma, ö zgü nlü k temelinde sahne "içi boş" sö zleri 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, mü kerrer olduğ u sü rece
isabetli bir şekilde çalışabilir ki onlar alıntılama sü recine işaret ederler; sö zler sadece bilinen
sö zlü ya da davranoşsal rejimleri tekrarladıklarında eyleme dö nü şü r. 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 dö nü ştü rmez. 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 sö zcü kler
yerine ideolojik ve davranışsal rejimlerin yinelemesi olarak belirtirlerken, tiyatral performans –
Austin, Parker ve Sedgwick tarafından ortaya atılan geleneksel edebi anlamda- prensip olarak
yazılı sö zcü klerin bir tü rü olarak gö rü lü rler. 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 bağ lamda, tiyatro, sö zcelere uygun olarak
aktarılan temel davranışlarda senaryoyu dağ ıtarak değ il, prensip olarak dramatik metinlerin
yinelemesi olarak gö rü lü r (tiyatroyu tuhaf bir şekilde “boşluğ a” çeviren alıntılama tü rü ). But is it
language, the text, that motivates the force of dramatic performance? Is it, in other words, the
dramatic text that the citational performances of the theater cite? Fakat dramatik performans
gü cü nü harekete geçiren dil, metin, midir? Diğ er 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 gö re dramatik
performansı şekillendirme sorunlarından biri de performansın, dramatic perdormans sadece bir
çeşit sö zce, sö z edim ü retimiymiş 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 aldığ ı 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
(ö rneğ in evlilik tö reni) onların dramatik performansa-ya da oyun olarak bilinen bir çeşit sö zce-
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, ö nemli olan Parker ve Sedgwick’in konuşma eylemlerini yeniden ele almasının
dramatik performanssın yeniden yorumlanması için bir umut doğ muş 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 gö rü nü rlü ğ ü n
geleneksel bir aracı olarak, sosyal hakimiyetin ne kadar artırıldığının boş bir işareti olarak
kalmasına rağmen, evlilik tö reni (“ben yaparım”) metni ve performansı arasındaki ilişkiyi
şekillendirme yö ntemi sunar ki bu şekil dramatik performansı biçimlendirme gö revi 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 gü ç yaratan belirlenmiş tö ren aracı ile
metni şekillendirir. The performance is not a citation of the text. Performans metnin bir aktarımı
değ ildir. 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 mean-
ingful citation. Tö ren metni -ve daha azını- belirgin bir sosyal sıralama gö rü şü nü n yinelemesinin
bir parçası olarak uygular: performansın anlamı metnin aktarımına değ il karşıcinsel
sosyalleşme rejimlerine, belli bir metin içindeki karşılıklı etkileşime, “performansın tarihsel ve
maddesel yoğ unluğ u” (Diamond, Introduction5), ve performansı anlamlı bir aktarım haline
getiren performans alıştırmaları ağ ına bağ lıdır. Although the theater is, for Parker and
Sedgwick, still hollow, their discussion of non-theatrical performance suggests that dramatic per-
formance should be released from the charge of "obeisance" to the playwright's or the text's au-
thority (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 gö sterilerek” orataya konması gerektiğini sö ylerler.
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 tercü me etmez.
Performance does not cite the text any more than "I do" constitutes the force of marriage.
Performans, metinden evliliğ in gü cü nü gö steren “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 ü retir (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 sansü rlemenin etkisel iddialarında, ö ne
sü rdü ğ ü gibi “metnin edimselliğ i iktidarın kontrolü nde değ il ise”, tiyatral performansın anlamı
dramatik metnin kontrolü ne 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 gö rü r 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-diğ er bü tü n performanslar gibi-metinlerin aktarımıyla, kendi rejiminin tekrarında
olduğ u gibi, bağ lantılı değ ildir; 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, yö netim kuralları,
skenografi-metinler ü zerinde işlev kazanır ve onları performans ve davranış ile edimsel gü ce
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
perlocutionary 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 yü zden Austin’in sö zce 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 controversies
among drama studies, theater studies, and performance studies. Edimin dramatik performans
ü zerindeki bu uygulaması, performansların kendi metinleri tarafından yazıldığ ı fikrini
gü çlendirir ve bu yü zden drama çalışmaları, tiyatro çalışmaları ve performans çalışmaları
arasındahem geleneksel hem gü ncel akademik tartışmalar ü retilmesine 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 değ il dramatik
performansa uygulanması, ü retim aşaması için, performansdaki metin işlevini yeniden kuracak,
metnin çalışma için sadece bir malzeme olarak algılanmasını sağ layacaktır. 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 yö netilmeleri 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 bağ layan bir alıntı olarak gö rmelerinden
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 yö ntemi olarak gü nlü k-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 kü ltü rü metin olarak değ erlendirmesi-modern tarihçilik uygulamasında ve kü ltü rel
şiir geleneğ ini şekillendirmede etkin olan- iddiaya bir başlangıç noktası sağ lar. 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 sö zcü kler yerine ideolojik ve davranışsal rejimlerin yinelemesi olarak belirtirlerken,
tiyatral performans – Austin, Parker ve Sedgwick tarafından ortaya atılan geleneksel edebi
anlamda- prensip olarak yazılı sö zcü klerin bir tü rü olarak gö rü lü rler. 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 gö rebilmek 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 yö netilmeleri 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 kü ltü rü metin olarak değ erlendirmesi-modern tarihçilik
uygulamasında ve kü ltü rel şiir geleneğ ini şekillendirmede etkin olan- iddiaya bir başlangıç
noktası sağ lar. 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 kü ltü r uygulamalarını açıkça belirtmiştir, fakat
Conquergood’u kü ltü rü n metinselleştirilmesi hakkında rahatsız eden şey daha temel bir problem.
Ethnography, 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 kü ltü rü nü metin olarak okuduğ u kadarıyla, Batı terimlerindeki diğ er etimolojileri
şekillendirerek bir kolonileştirme projesini sü rdü rü r. 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 kü ltü rü metin olarak
değ erlendirmeye ve onu yazıda ifade etmenin diğ er kü ltü rlerin sü recini ifade etmek bilginin
sadece batılı yolları değ il onları bastırmak ve dışlamak için sık sık kullanılan yazılı metin halleri
olduğ unu 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 ü zerinde 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 instrumental for the
essential. Fakat performans retorik ile “ temelci dü şü nceye muhalif olur” ki performansın
metinsel otoriteye bir çeşit direniş olduğunu gö stermek 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 gö rü lebilmesine rağ men, 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 kü çü mseme yaklaşımı-kime gö re boş?hangi anlamda?- edebi çalışmaları
edimselliğe ve performansa yö neltmesine 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,
yö netim kuralları, skenografi-metinler ü zerinde işlev kazanır ve onları performans ve davranış
ile edimsel gü ce 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, yö netim kuralları, skenografi-
metinler ü zerinde işlev kazanır ve onları performans ve davranış ile edimsel gü ce 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 inter-
actively over time" {Cities 11). Texts—with their boundaries in flux, their authors appearing and
disappearing, 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 kü çü mseme yaklaşımı-
kime gö re boş?hangi anlamda?- edebi çalışmaları edimselliğe ve performansa yö neltmesine
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 yö nlerinden biri dramatik performanslarıperformansları nedir bu eğ ilimi yoludur -veya
son eğ ilimi kadarmetin gerçekleştirilmesi(yada çok aynı şey bir okuma, yorumlama gibi perform
ans nazara, Shakespeare’inö rneğ in 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 olduğ unu sö ylemek için bu metin ile olan ilişkisi son derece
ince olduğ unu kabul etmek hemen: bir klasik oyun farklı sü rü mlerini bir dizi olarak
danışılmalıdır belki bu yana performans, doğ rudan herhangi bir anlamda bir metin
genellikle yok ü retim sü reci ve birçok komut bir parçası ü retilen ve bir oyun şekillendirme
sü recinde 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 ö lçü sü z şey, bir olay haline tiyatro ü retim yö nlü  sö zel ve sö zel
olmayan sö ylemler 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,
yö netim kuralları, skenografi-metinler ü zerinde işlev kazanır ve onları performans ve davranış
ile edimsel gü ce 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, kostü m, yö n, tü m miseenscene etkili kullanımı
Bir metin, bir tü r, bir performans geleneğ i, 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, yö netim kuralları, skenografi-metinler
ü zerinde işlev kazanır ve onları performans ve davranış ile edimsel gü ce 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 değ il
de aktarımsal uygulamalarla metne gö ndermeler yapan sö zce, 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 kostü mler 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 gö rdü ğ ü m en gü çlü  sahne performansları biri,bir iş "gebe [ve yö netmenliğ ini [" Ann
e Bogart tarafından Saratoga Uluslararası TiyatroEnstitü sü  şirketi tarafından "[aldattım ve [p erf
ormed]" da kullanır performans metinişleyen sorgulanmasına ve performans duyarlı araştırma 
bir sü rü mü dü r ö rneğ idir.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, ö zel
bir durum olarak gö rü nebilir Gone, aslında dramatikperformans normatif birdurumdur. İçinde d
aha geleneksel çalış kazanımların çok dadramatik metin, yapılır citational davranışlardan kazan
çlar gü cü nü  "Evet" Much olarakanlamlı onuoluşturan davranışlar performans yılında yü rü rlü ğ e
girmiştir.This interrogation of the working of texts relative to performances is not merely the
province of performance studies or of avant-garde theater; it is the work—often only the implicit
workofdramaticperformance.Metinlerin çalışma performanslarının gö reli Bu sorgulama sadece 
performansçalışmaları yada avantgarde tiyatronun il değ il, iş genellikle sadece ö rtü k iş dramatik
performans.Indeed, it impels the action of Baz Luhrmann's widely distributed film William Shake-
speare '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 dağ ıtılan Baz
Luhrmann eylem geçirdiğ i. Emin olmak için, bir film gibi, Luhrmann çalışmaları
surrogation bir modda oturup tiyatro performansının aksine. Performans olarak, kendi kentsel
ortamda, hızlı keser, gö rsel doygunluk ve popmü zik  sound track somutlaşan bir
MTV izleyiciye bilinçli adresi, televizyon kanallarının alıntı ile daha tiyatro ile daha az
meşgul olduğ unu. This dimension is also signaled in the opening and closing moments of the film,
in which a newscaster on a television screen speaks the prologue 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 filmin alıntı
gö rü yor olsada Shakespeare'in tiyatro (2) en kritik "hangi sö ylem ve bakış açısı Rö nesans sahne
oyuncu motorları vardı ironi ve abartılı bir istikrarsızlaştırmamekanizması olarak"Filmin reseps
iyon bu "etki" ve Shakespeare'in metin içindeki olasıneden ilişkisi ü zerine odaklanır, sadece perf
ormans citational doku dikkat geçen ö dedi.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, ö rneğ in, mü zik video filmin dolaylı tanır ("Birbiri ardına gö rsel
çağ layan, bir ses patlama-çoğ unlukla kaya sonra başkabir" [40]), o bir fonksiyonu
olarak performans başarısı veya başarısızlığ ı açısından nasıl iyi metin ü retir. 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 arasındakiilişkiyi tems
il ediyor? Surrogation dinamikleri ile filmin nişan başlığ ı 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 soruları ile meş
gul olan, herhangibir dramatik performans için geçerli sorular:Nasıl yok performans sorguya me
tin? 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 gö rsel 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 Series 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.
Ö rneğ in, "kılıç" Tybalt ve Benvolio sahne 1 dini simgeleri kakma ayrıntılı, mü cevherlitabanca va
rdır, hareket 1'de atıfta; Benvolio "Kılıçlarınızı koy", bağ ırır (1.1.65), kameraçalışması odaklanır 
onun tabanca ve-daha ö nemlisi-varil ü zerine kazınmış ü reticinin etikette: Kılıç 
9mm Serisi 5. Capulet onun "uzun kılıç" (1.1.75) için aradığ ında, hangi o
Longsword etiketli bir otomatik tü fek için biniyor limuzinin kapısı ü zerinde 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 sö zlü
metni gerekçe gö stererek, Shakespeare-Luhrmann filmi kü ltü rel metin, metin bir performans
olarak değ il, Shakespeare'in çalışma bu sü rü mü nü sunmak, klasik metinler ve performansları
arasındaki ilişkinin kurnaz bir yansıması dertakes ve işin bir çeviri olarak değ il işin bir
iterasyon, mutlaka çağ ırır ve gençlerin belirli bir citational çevre, gö rsel, gestural, sö zel ve
davranışsal dinamikleri metin gerçekleştirerek bir metin "kö ken" yerinden bir yineleme
olarak kü ltü r, 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 gö rü ntü  stand gibi:Luhrmann filmi takılı metin Sh
akespeare ö zellikleri içine gö rü ntü leri dö nü ştü rmek içinbaşarısızolur. Romeo ve Juliet, sadece g
ö steri asla metinleri alıntı olduğ unu dramatize, Romeo ve Juliet, Shakespeare'in metnini değ inir.
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 gö rsel doku içine script yazma, Luhrmann toprakları performans anal
izipratik ve drama ve performans çalışmaları disiplin çerçeveleme bir palpabl çarptı. Filmindra
matik performans geleneksel anlayışların sınırlamalar dramatizes; performans metinliteralizin
g, bu metin performans olarak sahnelenen olamayacağ ını gö steriyor. The drama can be pro-
duced 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, çağ daş davranış rejimleri içinde metin yerine, bir surrogation oyun bir ihanetdeğ il, işare
tleri yolları-Luhrmann filmi, bugü ne kadar kendi komut dosyası tarafındanyetkili olmanın-
ki dramatik performans gö sterdiğ igibi ü retir yü kselterek performansyılında izin, bakımından (a
s alıntı, yineleme tü m eylemleri ve surrogation yapmak) onlarıgizlemeye çalışır anda muayene i
çin 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 olduğ unuz) geçmiş anılar  ve yeni çalışma
oluşturmaktadır. Romeo Juliet "-/-" en iyi performanslarından gizlemeye çalışmak ne
gö rü nü r kılar: Yalnızca bir katkı jest ile metinsel "kö keni" alıntı olabilir, çok metin menşeli tü m
diğ er performans gibi, bu dramatik performans bir tü rlü  "+".

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 impor-
tant 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 Pennsylvania 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.