We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Online ordering will be unavailable from 17:00 GMT on Friday, April 25 until 17:00 GMT on Sunday, April 27 due to maintenance. We apologise for the inconvenience.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected]
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
Christopher Smart’s drag orations as Mary Midnight were enabled by burgeoning British social policy legislation combined with widespread cultural aspirations for creating an educated British public through public oratory. Ironically, the state censorship enacted in the 1752 Public Entertainments Act, which sought to limit public performances outside the licensed London theatres, created conditions that enabled Smart’s innovative attempts at entertaining—and therefore creating—a public unified across class and gender differences through a mixture of humor, erudition, dance, and music, among other forms of performances (including trained dog and monkey acts). The case of Smart’s Mary Midnight is key to understanding the achievements and limits of a British urban entertainment industry in the mid eighteenth century that was dedicated to creating a civil public sphere, as well as making money.
By focusing on a 2003 dance residency program sponsored by the U.S. State Department, this article locates twenty-first century American cultural diplomacy in a post-9/11 political context. The article focuses specifically on collaboration between San Francisco–based Margaret Jenkins Dance Company and Kolkata, India–based Tansuree Shankar Dance, which grew from the 2003 residency, to consider how artists find ways to facilitate cultural diplomacy that might be a blueprint for future American cultural diplomacy efforts. The article also addresses, however, the limits of that collaboration—limits that highlight the central tension of American cultural diplomacy: a desire to build relationships of so-called “mutual understanding” while also forwarding American national interests.
Recommend this
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.