Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T19:46:37.387Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Foreword

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 January 2009

Hélène Bouvier
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

On stage, in the wings, in the audience and outside: these are the spaces ethnologists and anthropologists traverse in the practice of fieldwork and writing—metaphorically, as participant-observers within a given community, or literally, if they study theatre forms.

Immersion in another community or society (with the consequent blurring of exoticism), purposeful distancing in time and space (rivalling with empathy generated by field presence), systematic investigation of selected themes, and constant striving to have theory inform data and perceptions of the objects of study—all these aspects of the anthropological method can be applied, in a given society, just as effectively to theatre as to those institutions (matrimonial, political, economic or religious, among others) usually studied by ethnologists. A circumscribed object, but one with complex implications for individuals and groups, theatre is a sophisticated, often useful means of access to understanding society, or at least a key to reading the combinatory diversity of a community's functioning, its history, its material production and technology, its cognitive orientations. Building on the necessary contextual analyses revealing the social, political and economic underpinnings of theatre forms, developing the concept of an expressive or aesthetic system in which theatre is but one element interacting with other artistic productions or practices within a given society, and testing the concept through intercultural comparison, the horizons for theatre anthropology are broad enough.

Attempting a more modest beginning, this special issue seeks to portray a special moment, a meeting between anthropology and theatre in a fertile, though underdeveloped field of study, with contributions from both anthropologists and theatre scholars.

Type
Foreword
Information
Theatre Research International , Volume 19 , Issue 1 , Spring 1994 , pp. 1 - 8
Copyright
Copyright © International Federation for Theatre Research 1994

References

Lila, Abu-Lughod. ‘Writing Against Culture.’ Recapturing Anthropology. Working in the Present. Ed. Richard, G. Fox.Santa Fe, New Mexico: School of American Research Press, 1991.Google Scholar
Eugenio, Barba, ‘Theatre Anthropology.’ The Drama Review 26.2 (1982): 5–32.Google Scholar
Barba, Eugenio and Savarese, Nicola. The Secret Art of the Performer. A Dictionary of Theatre Anthropology. London and New York: Routledge, 1991.Google Scholar
Brissett, Dennis and Charles, Edgley, eds. Life as Theater. A Dramaturgical Source Book. New York: Aldine de Gruyter, 1990.Google Scholar
Bruner, Edward M., ed. Text, Play, and Story: The Construction and Reconstruction of Self and Society. Washington: The American Ethnological Society, 1984.Google Scholar
Carrithers, Michael, ‘Is Anthropology Art or Science?’. Current Anthropology 31.3 (1990): 263–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clifford, James. The Predicament of Culture. Twentieth-Century Ethnography, Literature, and Art. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1988.Google Scholar
Clifford, James and George, E. Marcus, eds. Writing Culture. The Poetics and Politics of Ethnography. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1986.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fabian, Johannes. Power and Performance. Ethnographic Explorations through Proverbial Wisdom and Theater in Shaba, Zaire. Madison: The University of Wisconsin, 1990.Google Scholar
Fiebach, Joachim. ‘Theatre as Cultural Performance. Ethnography, Anthropology and Performing Arts.’ Nordic Theatre Studies. Ed. William, Sauter. Stockholm: Munksgaard, 1990.Google Scholar
Fox, Richard G. ed. Recapturing Anthropology. Working in the Present. Santa Fe: School of American Research Press, 1991.Google Scholar
Geertz, Clifford. The Interpretation of Cultures. New York: Basic Books, 1973.Google Scholar
Geertz, Clifford. Negara. The Theatre State in Nineteenth-Century Bali. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1980.Google Scholar
Goffman, Erving. The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. Garden City: Doubleday, 1959.Google Scholar
Goffman, Erving. Frame Analysis. New York: Harper and Row, 1974.Google Scholar
Gunawardana, Ariyasena J. Theater in Modernizing Societies: Some Aspects of Modem Asian Theater Developments. PhD. Dissertation in Philosophy, New York University. London: U.M.I. Microfilms, 1977.Google Scholar
Macdonald, Charles. Le théâtre des génies. Le cycle rituel féminin de Punang-Iraäräj, Palawan, Philippines. Paris: Éditions du CNRS, 1990.Google Scholar
Macdonald, Charles. ‘Philosophes ou artistes? Comparaison des formes rituelles a Palawan.’ L'Homme 33.1 (1993): 7–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pavis, Patrice. Le théâtre au croisement des cultures. Paris: José Corti, 1990.Google Scholar
Peacock, James L.Rites of Modernization. Symbols and Social Aspects of Indonesian Proletarian Drama. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, [1968] 1987.Google Scholar
Peacock, James L.The Anthropological Lens. Harsh Light, Soft Focus. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986.Google Scholar
Peacock, James L. ‘Ethnographic Notes on Sacred and Profane Performance.’ By Means of Performance. Intercultural Studies of Theatre and Ritual. Eds. Richard, Schechner and Willa, Appel. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990: 208–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richmond, Farley P., Darius, L. Swann, and Phillip, B. Zarrilli, eds. Indian Theatre. Traditions of Performance. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1990.Google Scholar
Sangren, P. Steven. ‘Rhetoric and the Authority of Ethnography: ‘Postmodernism’ and the Social Reproduction of Texts.’ Current Anthropology 29.3 (1988): 405–435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schechner, Richard, ‘Performance and the Social Sciences.’ and ‘Drama, Script, Theatre, and Performance.’ The Drama Review 17.3 (1973): 3–36.Google Scholar
Schechner, Richard. ‘Collective Reflexivity: Restoration of Behavior.’ A Crack in the Mirror. Reflexive Perspectives in Anthropology. Ed. Jay, Ruby. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1982.Google Scholar
Schechner, Richard. Between Theater and Anthropology. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1985.Google Scholar
Schechner, Richard. Performance Theory. London: Routledge, 1988.Google Scholar
Spaulding, Albert C. ‘Distinguished Lecture: Archeology and Anthropology.’ American Anthropologist 90.2 (1988): 263–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Turner, Victor W.Dramas, Fields, and Metaphors. Symbolic Action in Human Society. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1974.Google Scholar
Turner, Victor W.From Ritual to Theatre. The Human Seriousness of Play. New York: Performing Arts Journal, 1982.Google Scholar
Turner, Victor W.On the Edge of the Bush. Anthropology as Experience. Tucson: The University of Arizona Press, 1985.Google Scholar
Turner, Victor W. and Edward, M. Bruner, eds. The Anthropology of Experience. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1986.Google Scholar
Zarrilli, Phillip. The Kathakali Complex. Actor, Performance and Structure. New Delhi: Abhinav Publications, 1984.Google Scholar
Zarrilli, Phillip. ‘Contested Narratives on and off the Kathakali Dance-Drama Stage.’ Modem Drama 35.1 (1992): 101–116.Google Scholar