"“If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader.” ...

145

The Drama Review 46, 2 (T174), Summer 2002. Copyright � 2002 New York University and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Performance Studies

Interventions and Radical Research1

Dwight Conquergood

According to Michel de Certeau, “what the map cuts up, the story cuts across” (1984:129). This pithy phrase evokes a postcolonial world crisscrossed by trans- national narratives, diaspora affiliations, and, especially, the movement and mul- tiple migrations of people, sometimes voluntary, but often economically propelled and politically coerced. In order to keep pace with such a world, we now think of “place” as a heavily trafficked intersection, a port of call and exchange, instead of a circumscribed territory. A boundary is more like a membrane than a wall. In current cultural theory, “location” is imagined as an itinerary instead of a fixed point. Our understanding of “local context” expands to encompass the historical, dynamic, often traumatic, movements of people, ideas, images, commodities, and capital. It is no longer easy to sort out the local from the global: transnational circulations of images get reworked on the ground and redeployed for local, tactical struggles. And global flows simultaneously are encumbered and energized by these local makeovers. We now are keenly aware that the “local” is a leaky, contingent construction, and that global forces are taken up, struggled over, and refracted for site-specific purposes. The best of the new cultural theory distin- guishes itself from apolitical celebrations of mobility, flow, and easy border cross- ings by carefully tracking the transitive circuits of power and the political economic pressure points that monitor the migrations of people, channel the circulations of meanings, and stratify access to resources (see Gilroy 1994; Ap- padurai 1996; Lavie and Swedenburg 1996; Clifford 1997; di Leonardo 1998; Joseph 1999; Ong 1999). We now ask: For whom is the border a friction-free zone of entitled access, a frontier of possibility? Who travels confidently across borders, and who gets questioned, detained, interrogated, and strip-searched at the border (see Taylor 1999)?

But de Certeau’s aphorism, “what the map cuts up, the story cuts across,” also points to transgressive travel between two different domains of knowledge: one official, objective, and abstract—“the map”; the other one practical, embodied, and popular—“the story.” This promiscuous traffic between different ways of knowing carries the most radical promise of performance studies research. Per- formance studies struggles to open the space between analysis and action, and to pull the pin on the binary opposition between theory and practice. This embrace

146 Dwight Conquergood

of different ways of knowing is radical because it cuts to the root of how knowl- edge is organized in the academy.

The dominant way of knowing in the academy is that of empirical observation and critical analysis from a distanced perspective: “knowing that,” and “knowing about.” This is a view from above the object of inquiry: knowledge that is an- chored in paradigm and secured in print. This propositional knowledge is shad- owed by another way of knowing that is grounded in active, intimate, hands-on participation and personal connection: “knowing how,” and “knowing who.” This is a view from ground level, in the thick of things. This is knowledge that is anchored in practice and circulated within a performance community, but is ephemeral. Donna Haraway locates this homely and vulnerable “view from a body” in contrast to the abstract and authoritative “view from above,” universal knowledge that pretends to transcend location (1991:196).

Dominant epistemologies that link knowing with seeing are not attuned to meanings that are masked, camouflaged, indirect, em- bedded, or hidden in context.

Since the enlightenment project of modernity, the first way of knowing has been preeminent. Marching under the banner of science and reason, it has dis- qualified and repressed other ways of knowing that are rooted in embodied ex- perience, orality, and local contingencies. Between objective knowledge that is consolidated in texts, and local know-how that circulates on the ground within a community of memory and practice, there is no contest. It is the choice between science and “old wives’ tales” (note how the disqualified knowledge is gendered as feminine).

Michel Foucault coined the term “subjugated knowledges” to include all the local, regional, vernacular, naı̈ve knowledges at the bottom of the hierarchy— the low Other of science (1980:81–84). These are the nonserious ways of know- ing that dominant culture neglects, excludes, represses, or simply fails to recognize. Subjugated knowledges have been erased because they are illegible; they exist, by and large, as active bodies of meaning, outside of books, eluding the forces of inscription that would make them legible, and thereby legitimate (see de Certeau 1998; Scott 1998).

What gets squeezed out by this epistemic violence is the whole realm of com- plex, finely nuanced meaning that is embodied, tacit, intoned, gestured, impro- vised, coexperienced, covert—and all the more deeply meaningful because of its refusal to be spelled out. Dominant epistemologies that link knowing with seeing are not attuned to meanings that are masked, camouflaged, indirect, embedded, or hidden in context. The visual/verbal bias of Western regimes of knowledge blinds researchers to meanings that are expressed forcefully through intonation, silence, body tension, arched eyebrows, blank stares, and other protective arts of disguise and secrecy—what de Certeau called “the elocutionary experience of a fugitive communication” (2000:133; see Conquergood 2000). Subordinate peo- ple do not have the privilege of explicitness, the luxury of transparency, the presumptive norm of clear and direct communication, free and open debate on a level playing field that the privileged classes take for granted.

In his critique of the limitations of literacy, Kenneth Burke argued that print- based scholarship has built-in blind spots and a conditioned deafness:

The [written] record is usually but a fragment of the expression (as the written word omits all telltale record of gesture and tonality; and not only

Performance Studies 147

may our “literacy” keep us from missing the omissions, it may blunt us to the appreciation of tone and gesture, so that even when we witness the full expression, we note only those aspects of it that can be written down). ( [1950] 1969:185)

In even stronger terms, Raymond Williams challenged the class-based arrogance of scriptocentrism, pointing to the “error” and “delusion” of “highly educated” people who are “so driven in on their reading” that “they fail to notice that there are other forms of skilled, intelligent, creative activity” such as “theatre” and “active politics.” This error “resembles that of the narrow reformer who supposes that farm labourers and village craftsmen were once uneducated, merely because they could not read.” He argued that “the contempt” for performance and prac- tical activity, “which is always latent in the highly literate, is a mark of the ob- server’s limits, not those of the activities themselves” ([1958] 1983:309). Williams critiqued scholars for limiting their sources to written materials; I agree with Burke that scholarship is so skewed toward texts that even when researchers do attend to extralinguistic human action and embodied events they construe them as texts to be read. According to de Certeau, this scriptocentrism is a hallmark of Western imperialism. Posted above the gates of modernity, this sign: “‘Here only what is written is understood.’ Such is the internal law of that which has constituted itself as ‘Western’ [and ‘white’]” (1984:161).

Only middle-class academics could blithely assume that all the world is a text because reading and writing are central to their everyday lives and occupational security. For many people throughout the world, however, particularly subaltern groups, texts are often inaccessible, or threatening, charged with the regulatory powers of the state. More often than not, subordinate people experience texts and the bureaucracy of literacy as instruments of control and displacement, e.g., green cards, passports, arrest warrants, deportation orders—what de Certeau calls “intextuation”: “Every power, including the power of law, is written first of all on the backs of its subjects” (1984:140). Among the most oppressed people in the United States today are the “undocumented” immigrants, the so-called “il- legal aliens,” known in the vernacular as the people “sin papeles,” the people without papers, indocumentado/as. They are illegal because they are not legible, they trouble “the writing machine of the law” (de Certeau 1984:141).

The hegemony of textualism needs to be exposed and undermined. Transcrip- tion is not a transparent or politically innocent model for conceptualizing or engaging the world. The root metaphor of the text underpins the supremacy of Western knowledge systems by erasing the vast realm of human knowledge and meaningful action that is unlettered, “a history of the tacit and the habitual” ( Jackson 2000:29). In their multivolume historical ethnography of colonialism/ evangelism in South Africa, John and Jean Comaroff pay careful attention to the way Tswana people argued with their white interlocutors “both verbally and nonverbally” (1997:47; see also 1991). They excavate spaces of agency and strug- gle from everyday performance practices—clothing, gardening, healing, trading, worshipping, architecture, and homemaking—to reveal an impressive repertoire of conscious, creative, critical, contrapuntal responses to the imperialist project that exceeded the verbal. The Comaroffs intervene in an academically fashionable textual fundamentalism and fetish of the (verbal) archive where “text—a sad proxy for life—becomes all” (1992:26). “In this day and age,” they ask, “do we still have to remind ourselves that many of the players on any historical stage cannot speak at all? Or, under greater or lesser duress, opt not to do so” (1997:48; see also Scott 1990)?

There are many ethnographic examples of how nonelite people recognize the opacity of the text and critique its dense occlusions and implications in historical processes of political economic privilege and systematic exclusion. In Belize, for

148 Dwight Conquergood

example, Garifuna people, an African-descended minority group, use the word gapencillitin, which means “people with pencil,” to refer to middle- and upper- class members of the professional-managerial class, elites who approach life from an intellectual perspective. They use the word mapencillitin, literally “people with- out pencil,” to refer to rural and working-class people, “real folks” who approach life from a practitioner’s point of view.2 What is interesting about the Garifuna example is that class stratification, related to differential knowledges, is articulated in terms of access to literacy. The pencil draws the line between the haves and the have-nots. For Garifuna people, the pencil is not a neutral instrument; it functions metonymically as the operative technology of a complex political econ- omy of knowledge, power, and the exclusions upon which privilege is based.

The state of emergency under which many people live demands that we pay attention to messages that are coded and encrypted; to indirect, nonverbal, and extralinguistic modes of communi- cation where subversive meanings and utopian yearnings can be sheltered and shielded from surveillance.

In his study of the oppositional politics of black musical performance, Paul Gilroy argues that critical scholars need to move beyond this “idea and ideology of the text and of textuality as a mode of communicative practice which provides a model for all other forms of cognitive exchange and social interaction” (1994:77). Oppressed people everywhere must watch their backs, cover their tracks, suck up their feelings, and veil their meanings. The state of emergency under which many people live demands that we pay attention to messages that are coded and encrypted; to indirect, nonverbal, and extralinguistic modes of communication where subversive meanings and utopian yearnings can be shel- tered and shielded from surveillance.

Gilroy’s point is illustrated vividly by Frederick Douglass in a remarkable pas- sage from his life narrative in which he discussed the improvisatory performance politics expressed in the singing of enslaved people. It is worth quoting at length:3

But, on allowance day, those who visited the great house farm were pecu- liarly excited and noisy. While on their way, they would make the dense old woods, for miles around, reverberate with their wild notes. These were not always merry because they were wild. On the contrary, they were mostly of a plaintive cast, and told a tale of grief and sorrow. In the most boisterous outbursts of rapturous sentiment, there was ever a tinge of deep melancholy [...]. I have sometimes thought that the mere hearing of those songs would do more to impress truly spiritual-minded men and women with the soul-crushing and death-dealing character of slavery, than the reading of whole volumes [...]. Every tone was a testimony against slavery [...]. The hearing of those wild notes always [...] filled my heart with ineffable sadness [...]. To those songs I trace my first glimmering conceptions of the dehumanizing character of slavery [...]. Those songs still follow me, to deepen my hatred of slavery, and quicken my sympa- thies for my brethren in bonds. ([1855] 1969:97–99)

Enslaved people were forbidden by law in 19th-century America to acquire literacy. No wonder, then, that Douglass, a former enslaved person, still acknowl-

Performance Studies 149

edged the deeply felt insights and revelatory power that come through the em- bodied experience of listening to communal singing, the tones, cadence, vocal nuances, all the sensuous specificities of performance that overflow verbal content: “they were tones loud, long, and deep” (99).

In order to know the deep meaning of slavery, Douglass recommended an experiential, participatory epistemology as superior to the armchair “reading of whole volumes.” Douglass advised meeting enslaved people on the ground of their experience by exposing oneself to their expressive performances. In this way, Douglass anticipated and extended Johannes Fabian’s call for a turn “from informative to performative ethnography” (1990:3), an ethnography of the ears and heart that reimagines participant-observation as coperformative witnessing:

If any one wishes to be impressed with a sense of the soul-killing power of slavery, let him go to Colonel Lloyd’s plantation, and, on allowance day, place himself in the deep pine woods, and there let him, in silence, thoughtfully analyze the sounds that shall pass through the chambers of his soul, and if he is not thus impressed, it will only be because “there is no flesh in his obdurate heart.” (Douglass [1855] 1969:99)

Instead of reading textual accounts of slavery, Douglass recommended a riskier hermeneutics of experience, relocation, copresence, humility, and vulnerability: listening to and being touched by the protest performances of enslaved people. He understood that knowledge is located, not transcendent (“let him go” and “place himself in the deep pine woods, and there [...]”); that it must be engaged, not abstracted (“let him [...] analyze the sounds that shall pass through the chambers of his soul”); and that it is forged from solidarity with, not separation from, the people (“quicken my sympathies for my brethren in bonds”). In this way, Doug- lass’s epistemology prefigured Antonio Gramsci’s call for engaged knowledge: “The intellectual’s error consists in believing that one can know without under- standing and even more without feeling and being impassioned [...] that is, with- out feeling the elementary passions of the people” (1971:418). Proximity, not objectivity, becomes an epistemological point of departure and return.

Douglass recommended placing oneself quietly, respectfully, humbly, in the space of others so that one could be surrounded and “impressed” by the expressive meanings of their music. It is subtle but significant that he instructed the outsider to listen “in silence.” I interpret this admonition as an acknowledgment and subversion of the soundscapes of power within which the ruling classes typically are listened to while the subordinate classes listen in silence. Anyone who had the liberty to travel freely would be, of course, on the privileged side of domi- nation and silencing that these songs evoked and contested. In effect, Douglass encouraged a participatory understanding of these performances, but one that muffled white privilege. Further, because overseers often commanded enslaved people to sing in the fields as a way of auditing their labor, and plantation rulers even appropriated after-work performances for their own amusement, Douglass was keenly sensitive to how one approached and entered subjugated spaces of performance.

The mise-en-scène of feeling-understanding-knowing for Douglass is radically different from the interpretive scene set forth by Clifford Geertz in what is now a foundational and frequently cited quotation for the world-as-text model in ethnography and cultural studies: “The culture of a people is an ensemble of texts, themselves ensembles, which the anthropologist strains to read over the shoulders of those to whom they properly belong” (1973:452). Whereas Douglass featured cultural performances that register and radiate dynamic “structures of feeling” and pull us into alternative ways of knowing that exceed cognitive control

150 Dwight Conquergood

(Williams 1977), Geertz figures culture as a stiff, awkward reading room. The ethnocentrism of this textualist metaphor is thrown into stark relief when applied to the countercultures of enslaved and other dispossessed people. Forcibly ex- cluded from acquiring literacy, enslaved people nonetheless created a culture of resistance. Instead of an “ensemble of texts,” however, a repertoire of perfor- mance practices became the backbone of this counterculture where politics was “played, danced, and acted, as well as sung and sung about, because words [...] will never be enough to communicate its unsayable claims to truth” (Gilroy 1994:37).

In addition to the ethnocentrism of the culture-is-text metaphor, Geertz’s theory needs to be critiqued for its particular fieldwork-as-reading model: “Do- ing ethnography is like trying to read [...] a manuscript” (10). Instead of listening, absorbing, and standing in solidarity with the protest performances of the people, as Douglass recommended, the ethnographer, in Geertz’s scene, stands above and behind the people and, uninvited, peers over their shoulders to read their texts, like an overseer or a spy. There is more than a hint of the improper in this scene: the asymmetrical power relations secure both the anthropologist’s privilege to intrude and the people’s silent acquiescence (although one can imagine what they would say about the anthropologist’s manners and motives when they are outside his reading gaze). The strain and tension of this scene are not mediated by talk or interaction; both the researcher and the researched face the page as silent readers instead of turning to face one another and, perhaps, open a conversation.

Geertz’s now classic depiction of the turn toward texts in ethnography and cultural studies needs to be juxtaposed with Zora Neal Hurston’s much earlier and more complex rendering of a researcher reading the texts of subordinate others:

The theory behind our tactics: “The white man is always trying to know into somebody else’s business. All right, I’ll set something outside the door of my mind for him to play with and handle. He can read my writ- ing but he sho’ can’t read my mind. I’ll put this play toy in his hand, and he will seize it and go away. Then I’ll say my say and sing my song.” ([1935] 1990:3)

Hurston foregrounds the terrain of struggle, the field of power relations on which texts are written, exchanged, and read. Whereas Geertz does not problematize the ethnographer’s will-to-know or access to the texts of others, Hurston is sen- sitive to the reluctance of the subordinate classes “to reveal that which the soul lives by” (2) because they understand from experience the ocular politics that links the powers to see, to search, and to seize. Aware of the white man’s drive to objectify, control, and grasp as a way of knowing, subordinate people cunningly set a text, a decoy, outside the door to lure him away from “homeplace” where subjugated but empowering truths and survival secrets are sheltered (hooks 1990). In Hurston’s brilliant example, vulnerable people actually redeploy the written text as a tactic of evasion and camouflage, performatively turning and tripping the textual fetish against the white person’s will-to-know. “So driven in on his reading,” as Williams would say, he is blinded by the texts he compulsively seizes: “knowing so little about us, he doesn’t know what he is missing” (Hurston [1935] 1990:2). Once provided with something that he can “handle,” “seize,” in a word, apprehend, he will go away and then space can be cleared for performed truths that remain beyond his reach: “then I’ll say my say and sing my song.” By mim- icking the reifying textualism of dominant knowledge regimes, subordinate peo- ple can deflect its invasive power. This mimicry of textualism is a complex example of “mimetic excess” in which the susceptibility of dominant images,

Performance Studies 151

forms, and technologies of power to subversive doublings holds the potential for undermining the power of that which is mimed (Taussig 1993:254–55).

Note that in Hurston’s account, subordinate people read and write, as well as perform. With her beautiful example of how a text can perform subversive work, she disrupts any simplistic dichotomy that would align texts with domination and performance with liberation. In Hurston’s example, the white man researcher is a fool not because he values literacy, but because he valorized it to the exclusion of other media, other modes of knowing. I want to be very clear about this point: textocentrism—not texts—is the problem.

The constitutive liminality of performance studies lies in its ca- pacity to bridge segregated and differently valued knowledges, drawing together legitimated as well as subjugated modes of in- quiry.

From her ethnographic fieldwork in the coal camps and “hollers” of West Virginia, Kathleen Stewart documents an especially vivid example of text- performance entanglements: how official signs and local performances play off and with each other in surprising and delightful ways. After a dog bit a neighbor’s child, there was much talk and worry throughout the camp about liability and lawsuits:

Finally Lacy Forest announced that he had heard that “by law” if you had a NO TRESPASSING sign on your porch you couldn’t be sued. So ev- eryone went to the store in Beckley to get the official kind of sign. Neighbors brought back multiple copies and put them up for those too old or sick or poor to get out and get their own. Then everyone called everyone else to explain that the sign did not mean them. In the end, every porch and fence (except for those of the isolated shameless who don’t care) had a bright NO TRESPASSING, KEEP OFF sign, and peo- ple visited together, sitting underneath the NO TRESPASSING signs, looking out. (1996:141; see also Conquergood 1997)4

Through the power of reframing, social performances reclaim, short-circuit, and resignify the citational force of the signed imperatives. Moreover, Ngũgı̃ wa Thiong’o’s concept of “orature” complicates any easy separation between speech and writing, performance and print, and reminds us how these channels of com- munication constantly overlap, penetrate, and mutually produce one another (1998).

The performance studies project makes its most radical intervention, I believe, by embracing both written scholarship and creative work, papers and perfor- mances. We challenge the hegemony of the text best by reconfiguring texts and performances in horizontal, metonymic tension, not by replacing one hierarchy with another, the romance of performance for the authority of the text. The “liminal-norm” that Jon McKenzie identifies as the calling card of performance studies (2001:41) manifests itself most powerfully in the struggle to live betwixt and between theory and theatricality, paradigms and practices, critical reflection and creative accomplishment. Performance studies brings this rare hybridity into the academy, a commingling of analytical and artistic ways of knowing that un- settles the institutional organization of knowledge and disciplines. The consti-

152 Dwight Conquergood

tutive liminality of performance studies lies in its capacity to bridge segregated and differently valued knowledges, drawing together legitimated as well as sub- jugated modes of inquiry.

There is an emergent genre of performance studies scholarship that epitomizes this text-performance hybridity. A number of performance studies–allied scholars create performances as a supplement to, not substitute for, their written research. These performance pieces stand alongside and in metonymic tension with pub- lished research. The creative works are developed for multiple professional rea- sons: they deepen experiential and participatory engagement with materials both for the researcher and her audience; they provide a dynamic and rhetorically compelling alternative to conference papers; they offer a more accessible and engaging format for sharing research and reaching communities outside academia; they are a strategy for staging interventions. To borrow Amanda Kemp’s apt phrase, they use “performance both as a way of knowing and as a way of showing” (1998:116). To add another layer to the enfolding convolutions of text and per- formance, several of these performance pieces have now been written up and published in scholarly journals and books (see Conquergood 1988; Becker, McCall, and Morris 1989; McCall and Becker 1990; Paget 1990; Pollock 1990; Jackson 1993, 1998; Allen and Garner 1995; Laughlin 1995; Wellin 1996; Jones 1997; Kemp 1998).

Performance studies is uniquely suited for the challenge of braiding together disparate and stratified ways of knowing. We can think through performance along three crisscrossing lines of activity and analysis. We can think of perfor- mance (1) as a work of imagination, as an object of study; (2) as a pragmatics of inquiry (both as model and method), as an optic and operator of research; (3) as a tactics of intervention, an alternative space of struggle. Speaking from my home department at Northwestern, we often refer to the three a’s of performance studies: artistry, analysis, activism. Or to change the alliteration, a commitment to the three c ’s of performance studies: creativity, critique, citizenship (civic strug- gles for social justice). We struggle to forge a unique and unifying mission around the triangulations of these three pivot points:

1. Accomplishment—the making of art and remaking of culture; creativity; em- bodiment; artistic process and form; knowledge that comes from doing, par- ticipatory understanding, practical consciousness, performing as a way of knowing.

2. Analysis—the interpretation of art and culture; critical reflection; thinking about, through, and with performance; performance as a lens that illuminates the constructed creative, contingent, collaborative dimensions of human com- munication; knowledge that comes from contemplation and comparison; concentrated attention and contextualization as a way of knowing.

3. Articulation—activism, outreach, connection to community; applications and interventions; action research; projects that reach outside the academy and are rooted in an ethic of reciprocity and exchange; knowledge that is tested by practice within a community; social commitment, collaboration, and contri- bution/intervention as a way of knowing: praxis.

Notwithstanding the many calls for embracing theory and practice, universities typically institutionalize a hierarchical division of labor between scholars/re- searchers and artists/practitioners. For example, the creative artists in the De- partment of Fine Arts are separated from the “serious” scholars in the Department of Art History. Even when scholars and practitioners are housed within the same department, there often is internal differentiation and tracking, e.g., the literary

Performance Studies 153

theorists and critics are marked off from those who teach creative and expository writing. This configuration mirrors an entrenched social hierarchy of value based on the fundamental division between intellectual labor and manual labor. In the academy, the position of the artist/practitioner is comparable to people in the larger society who work with their hands, who make things, and who are valued less than the scholars/theorists who work with their minds and are comparable to the more privileged professional-managerial class. Indeed, sometimes one of the reasons for forming schools of fine and performing arts is to protect artists/ practitioners from tenure and promotion committees dominated by the more institutionally powerful scholar/researchers who do not know how to appraise a record of artistic accomplishment as commensurate with traditional criteria of scholarly research and publication. The segregation of faculty and students who make art and perform from those who think about and study art and performance is based on a false dichotomy that represses the critical-intellectual component of any artistic work, and the imaginative-creative dimension of scholarship that makes a difference. A spurious, counterproductive, and mutually denigrating op- position is put into play that pits so-called “mere technique, studio skills, know- how” against so-called “arid knowledge, abstract theory, sterile scholarship.” This unfortunate schism is based on gross reductionism and ignorance of “how the other half lives.” Students are cheated and disciplines diminished by this academic apartheid.

The ongoing challenge of performance studies is to refuse and supercede this deeply entrenched division of labor, apartheid of knowledges, that plays out inside the academy as the difference between thinking and doing, interpreting and making, concep- tualizing and creating.

A performance studies agenda should collapse this divide and revitalize the connections between artistic accomplishment, analysis, and articulations with communities; between practical knowledge (knowing how), propositional knowledge (knowing that), and political savvy (knowing who, when, and where). This epistemological connection between creativity, critique, and civic engage- ment is mutually replenishing, and pedagogically powerful. Very bright, talented students are attracted to programs that combine intellectual rigor with artistic excellence that is critically engaged, where they do not have to banish their artistic spirit in order to become a critical thinker, or repress their intellectual self or political passion to explore their artistic side. Particularly at the PhD level, original scholarship in culture and the arts is enhanced, complemented, and complicated in deeply meaningful ways by the participatory understanding and community involvement of the researcher. This experiential and engaged model of inquiry is coextensive with the participant-observation methods of ethnographic research.

The ongoing challenge of performance studies is to refuse and supercede this deeply entrenched division of labor, apartheid of knowledges, that plays out inside the academy as the difference between thinking and doing, interpreting and mak- ing, conceptualizing and creating. The division of labor between theory and practice, abstraction and embodiment, is an arbitrary and rigged choice, and, like all binarisms, it is booby-trapped. It’s a Faustian bargain. If we go the one-way street of abstraction, then we cut ourselves off from the nourishing ground of

154 Dwight Conquergood

participatory experience. If we go the one-way street of practice, then we drive ourselves into an isolated cul-de-sac, a practitioner’s workshop or artist’s colony. Our radical move is to turn, and return, insistently, to the crossroads.

Notes

1. A shorter version of this paper was presented at the “Cultural Intersections” conference at Northwestern University, 9 October 1999. “Cultural Intersections” was the inaugural con- ference for Northwestern’s Doctoral Studies in Culture: Performance, Theatre, Media, a new interdisciplinary PhD program.

2. I thank my Belizean colleague, Dr. Barbara Flores, for sharing this Garifuna material with me. I had the privilege of working with Dr. Flores when she was a graduate student at Northwestern.

3. An earlier version of the Frederick Douglass-Zora Neal Hurston discussion appeared in 1998 (Conquergood 1998).

4. Stewart’s experimental ethnography is remarkably performance-sensitive and performance- saturated. Her text is replete with voices, sometimes explicitly quoted, but often evoked through literary techniques of indirect and double-voiced discourse so that the reader is simultaneously aware of the ethnographer’s voice and the voices from the field, their inter- action and gaps. The students in my critical ethnography seminar adapted and performed passages from the ethnography as a way of testing Stewart’s stylistic innovations and textual evocations of performance.

References

Allen, Catherine J., and Nathan Garner 1995 “Condor Qatay: Anthropology in Performance.” American Anthropologist 97, 1

(March):69–82.

Appadurai, Arjun 1996 Modernity At Large: Cultural Dimensions of Globalization. Minneapolis: University

of Minnesota Press.

Becker, Howard S., Michal M. McCall, and Lori V. Morris 1989 “Theatres and Communities: Three Scenes.” Social Problems 36, 2 (April):93–

116.

Burke, Kenneth 1969 [1950] A Rhetoric of Motives. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Certeau, Michel de 1984 The Practice of Everyday Life. Translated by Steven Rendall. Berkeley: University

of California Press. 1998 The Capture of Speech and Other Political Writings. Edited by Luce Giard. Translated

by Tom Conley. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. 2000 The Certeau Reader. Edited by Graham Ward. Oxford: Blackwell.

Clifford, James 1997 Routes: Travel and Translation in the Late Twentieth Century. Cambridge: Harvard

University Press.

Comaroff, Jean, and John Comaroff 1991 Of Revelation and Revolution: Christianity, Colonialism, and Consciousness in South

Africa, Volume 1. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 1992 Ethnography and the Historical Imagination. Boulder, CO: Westview. 1997 Of Revelation and Revolution: The Dialectics of Modernity on a South African Frontier,

Volume 2. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Conquergood, Dwight 1988 “Health Theatre in a Hmong Refugee Camp: Performance, Communication,

Culture.” TDR 32, 3 (T119):174–208. 1997 “Street Literacy.” In Handbook of Research on Teaching Literacy through the Com-

Performance Studies 155

municative and Visual Arts, edited by James Flood, Shirley Brice Heath, and Diane Lapp, 354–75. New York: MacMillan.

1998 “Beyond the Text: Toward a Performative Cultural Politics.” In The Future of Performance Studies: Visions and Revisions, edited by Sheron J. Dailey, 25–36. Wash- ington, DC: National Communication Association.

2000 “Rethinking Elocution: The Trope of the Talking Book and Other Figures of Speech.” Text and Performance Quarterly 20, 4 (October):325–41.

Douglass, Frederick 1969 [1855] My Bondage and My Freedom. Introduction by Philip Foner. New York: Dover.

Fabian, Johannes 1990 Power and Performance: Ethnographic Explorations through Proverbial Wisdom and The-

ater in Shaba, Zaire. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.

Foucault, Michel 1980 Power/Knowledge. Edited by Colin Gordon. Translated by Colin Gordon, Leo

Marshall, John Mepham, and Kate Soper. New York: Pantheon.

Geertz, Clifford 1973 The Interpretation of Cultures. New York: Basic Books.

Gilroy, Paul 1994 The Black Atlantic. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Gramsci, Antonio 1971 Selections from the Prison Notebooks. Edited and translated by Quintin Hoare and

Geoffrey Smith. New York: International.

Haraway, Donna 1991 Simians, Cyborgs, and Women: The Reinvention of Nature. New York: Routledge.

hooks, bell 1990 “Homeplace: A Site of Resistance.” In Yearning: Race, Gender, and Cultural Politics,

41–49. Boston: South End Press.

Hurston, Zora Neal 1990 [1935] Mules and Men. New York: Harper.

Jackson, Shannon 1991 “Ethnography and the Audition: Performance As Ideological Critique.” Text and

Performance Quarterly 13, 1 ( January):21–43. 1998 “White Noises: On Performing White, On Writing Performance.” TDR 42, 1

(T157):49–64. 2000 Lines of Activity: Performance, Historiography, Hull-House Domesticity. Ann Arbor:

University of Michigan Press.

Jones, Joni L. 1997 “sista docta: Performance as Critique of the Academy.” TDR 41, 2 (T154):51–67.

Joseph, May 1999 Nomadic Identities: The Performance of Citizenship. Minneapolis: University of Min-

nesota Press.

Kemp, Amanda 1998 “This Black Body in Question.” In The Ends of Performance, edited by Peggy

Phelan and Jill Lane, 116–29. New York: New York University Press.

Laughlin, Robert 1995 “From All for All: A Tzotzil-Tzeltal Tragicomedy.” American Anthropologist 97, 3

(September):528–42.

Lavie, Smadar, and Ted Swedenburg, eds. 1996 Displacement, Diaspora, and Geographies of Identity. Durham: Duke University

Press.

156 Dwight Conquergood

Leonardo, Micaela di 1998 Exotics At Home: Anthropologies, Others, American Modernity. Chicago: University

of Chicago Press.

McCall, Michal M., and Howard S. Becker 1990 “Performance Science.” Social Problems 37, 1 (February):117–32.

McKenzie, Jon 2001 Perform or Else: From Discipline to Performance. London: Routledge.

Ong, Aihwa 1999 Flexible Citizenship: The Cultural Logics of Transnationality. Durham: Duke Uni-

versity Press.

Paget, Marianne A. 1990 “Performing the Text.” Journal of Contemporary Ethnography 19, 1 (April):136–55.

Pollock, Della 1990 “Telling the Told: Performing Like a Family.” Oral History Review 18, 2 (Fall):

1–36.

Scott, James C. 1990 Domination and the Arts of Resistance. New Haven: Yale University Press. 1998 Seeing Like a State. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Stewart, Kathleen 1996 A Space on the Side of the Road: Cultural Poetics in an “Other” America. Princeton,

NJ: Princeton University Press.

Taussig, Michael 1993 Mimesis and Alterity. New York: Routledge.

Taylor, Diana 1999 “Dancing with Diana: A Study in Hauntology.” TDR 43, 1 (T161):59–78.

Thiong’o, Ngũgı̃ wa 1998 “Oral Power and Europhone Glory: Orature, Literature, and Stolen Legacies.”

In Penpoints, Gunpoints, and Dreams: Towards a Critical Theory of the Arts and the State in Africa. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Wellin, Christopher 1996 “‘Life at Lake Home’: An Ethnographic Performance in Six Voices; An Essay on

Method, in Two.” Qualitative Sociology 19, 4:497–516.

Williams, Raymond 1977 Marxism and Literary Study. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 1983 [1958] Culture and Society. New York: Columbia University Press.

Dwight Conquergood, Professor of performance studies at Northwestern University, is an ethnographer who has conducted extensive field research in refugee camps overseas and in immigrant neighborhoods in Chicago. Conquergood has coproduced two award-winning documentaries based on his Chicago urban field research: Between Two Worlds: The Hmong Shaman in America (1985) and The Heart Broken in Half (1990). He has consulted with the International Rescue Committee and other human rights organizations working on the death penalty, as well as with public defenders working on capital cases. He has taught at the Bryan R. Shechmeister Death Penalty College, School of Law, Santa Clara University.

This article has been cited by:

1. Carla Rice, Eliza Chandler, Kirsty Liddiard, Jen Rinaldi, Elisabeth Harrison. 2018. Pedagogical possibilities for unruly bodies. Gender and Education 30:5, 663-682. [Crossref]

2. Chris W. Henderson. 2018. Two balls is too many: stadium performance and queerness among Portland’s Rose City Riveters supporters club. Sport in Society 21:7, 1031-1046. [Crossref]

3. Hua Wang, Arvind Singhal. 2018. Audience-centered discourses in communication and social change: the ‘Voicebook’ of Main Kuch Bhi Kar Sakti Hoon , an entertainment-education initiative in India. Journal of Multicultural Discourses 37, 1-16. [Crossref]

4. Cassandra Hartblay. 2018. This is not thick description: Conceptual art installation as ethnographic process. Ethnography 19:2, 153-182. [Crossref]

5. Tami Spry. 2018. Skin and Bone: Beauty as Critical Praxis. Qualitative Inquiry 24:5, 342-344. [Crossref] 6. Rachel Turner-King. 2018. Creating welcoming spaces in the city: exploring the theory and practice of ‘hospitality’ in two regional

theatres. Research in Drama Education: The Journal of Applied Theatre and Performance 1, 1-17. [Crossref] 7. Emily R.M. Lind, Crystal Kotow, Carla Rice, Jen Rinaldi, Andrea LaMarre, May Friedman, Tracy Tidgwell. 2018.

Reconceptualizing temporality in and through multimedia storytelling: Making time with through thick and thin. Fat Studies 7:2, 181-192. [Crossref]

8. Grit Kirstin Koeltzsch. 2018. ¿Liberación o dominación? Prácticas dancísticas como performance social en el Noroeste Argentino. Canadian Journal of Latin American and Caribbean Studies / Revue canadienne des études latino-américaines et caraïbes 43:2, 151-170. [Crossref]

9. Carla Rice, Ingrid Mündel. 2018. Story-Making as Methodology: Disrupting Dominant Stories through Multimedia Storytelling. Canadian Review of Sociology/Revue canadienne de sociologie 55:2, 211-231. [Crossref]

10. Vandana Chaudhry. 2018. Centering embodiment in disability research through performance ethnography. Qualitative Social Work 2, 147332501876772. [Crossref]

11. Nicholas S. Paliewicz. 2018. Making Sense of the People’s Climate March: Towards an Aesthetic Approach to the Rhetoric of Social Protest. Western Journal of Communication 13, 1-19. [Crossref]

12. Melisa Cahnmann-Taylor, Kuo Zhang. The Arts and TESOL 1-6. [Crossref] 13. Ashleigh M. Day. 2018. Performance, Possums, and Photo-Ops, Too: Marginalizing Binaries at the Wausau Possum Festival.

Western Journal of Communication 10, 1-18. [Crossref] 14. Hilary Cooperman. Listening Through Performance: Identity, Embodiment, and Arts-Based Research 19-35. [Crossref] 15. Peter R. Jensen. 2018. Undignified Dignity: Using Humor to Manage the Stigma of Mental Illness and Homelessness.

Communication Quarterly 66:1, 20-37. [Crossref] 16. Martin Urschel. Genre und Performativität 1-25. [Crossref] 17. Adriana Gil-Juárez, Joel Feliu, Anna Vitores. 2018. Mutable technology, immutable gender: Qualifying the “co-construction of

gender and technology” approach. Women's Studies International Forum 66, 56-62. [Crossref] 18. Roel Wijland, Stephen Brown. 2017. Quickening brand poetics: the lyric alternative in qualitative research. Qualitative Market

Research: An International Journal 33, 00-00. [Crossref] 19. Shauna M. MacDonald. 2017. Composing an Autoethnographic Cartography of Blue. Cultural Studies ↔ Critical Methodologies

3, 153270861667365. [Crossref] 20. Anima Adjepong. 2017. Invading ethnography: A queer of color reflexive practice. Ethnography 14, 146613811774150. [Crossref] 21. Devika Chawla, Rebecca Mercado Jones. Ethnography/Ethnographic Methods 1-18. [Crossref] 22. Justin Rudnick, Devika Chawla. Performance Studies 1-12. [Crossref] 23. Nina Woodrow. 2017. City of welcome: refugee storytelling and the politics of place. Continuum 31:6, 780-790. [Crossref] 24. Helen Phelan. 2017. The Untidy Playground: An Irish Congolese Case Study in Sonic Encounters with the Sacred Stranger.

Religions 8:11, 249. [Crossref] 25. Anastasia Seregina. 2017. Engaging the audience through videography as performance. Journal of Marketing Management 27,

1-18. [Crossref] 26. Jonathan Croose. 2017. ‘The Official Feast’: cultural tensions in U.K. carnival. Social & Cultural Geography 3, 1-24. [Crossref] 27. Callie Spencer Schultz. 2017. ‘Working the ruins’ of collaborative feminist research. International Journal of Qualitative Studies

in Education 30:6, 505-518. [Crossref]

28. Philip F. Kelly, Elisabeth Kramer, Ethel Tungohan, Chaya Ocampo Go, Jason Morris-Jung, Dominique Caouette. 2017. Expertise, embodiment, and the dilemmas of activist research in Southeast Asia. Critical Asian Studies 49:3, 428-436. [Crossref]

29. Julia Sideris. 2017. From You and Me to Us and We. Children Australia 42:02, 79-86. [Crossref] 30. Nadia Davids. 2017. “Sequins, Self & Struggle”: an introduction to the special issue. Safundi 18:2, 109-116. [Crossref] 31. Melisa Cahnmann-Taylor, Susan Bleyle, Yohan Hwang, Kuo Zhang. 2017. Teaching Poetry in TESOL Teacher Education:

Heightened Attention to Language as Well as to Cultural and Political Critique Through Poetry Writing. TESOL Journal 8:1, 70-101. [Crossref]

32. Kris D. Gutiérrez, Krista Cortes, Arturo Cortez, Daniela DiGiacomo, Jennifer Higgs, Patrick Johnson, José Ramón Lizárraga, Elizabeth Mendoza, Joanne Tien, Sepehr Vakil. 2017. Replacing Representation With Imagination: Finding Ingenuity in Everyday Practices. Review of Research in Education 41:1, 30-60. [Crossref]

33. Charles Vanover. 2017. From Connection to Distance. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography 46:1, 51-80. [Crossref] 34. Jade Boyd. 2017. (Re)visualizing women who use drugs. Visual Studies 32:1, 70-80. [Crossref] 35. Caitlin Nunn. 2017. Translations-Generations : Representing and Producing Migration Generations Through Arts-Based

Research. Journal of Intercultural Studies 38:1, 1-17. [Crossref] 36. Sophie Scott-Brown. 2017. Re-Reading Raphael Samuel: Politics, Personality and Performance. Life Writing 14:1, 19-36.

[Crossref] 37. Treena Orchard. The Forest and the Trees: Pushing the Analytical Envelope 41-63. [Crossref] 38. Chris McRae, Aubrey Huber. Practice Space 15-42. [Crossref] 39. Durell M. Callier, Dominique C. Hill, Hill L. Waters. Critical Collaborative Performance Autoethnography 37-44. [Crossref] 40. Jane Frances Dunlop. 2017. Proximity and Dissonance in Internet-situated Performance. Performance Research 22:3, 89. [Crossref] 41. Efua Prah. Exploring Children’s Experiences in a Temporary Relocation Area Through Theatre and Performance 271-290.

[Crossref] 42. Sruti Bala. Scattered Speculations on the ‘Internationalization’ of Performance Research 55-65. [Crossref] 43. Danielle Endres, Aaron Hess, Samantha Senda-Cook, Michael K. Middleton. 2016. In Situ Rhetoric. Cultural Studies ↔ Critical

Methodologies 16:6, 511-524. [Crossref] 44. Elinor Light. 2016. Visualizing Homeland. Cultural Studies ↔ Critical Methodologies 16:6, 536-547. [Crossref] 45. Jennifer Wilson. 2016. The white cube in the black box: assessing artistic research quality in multidisciplinary academic panels.

Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 41:8, 1223-1236. [Crossref] 46. ANNEMARIE DORLAND. 2016. Tell Me Why You Did That: Learning “Ethnography” from the Design Studio. Ethnographic

Praxis in Industry Conference Proceedings 2016:1, 135-153. [Crossref] 47. Heidi M. Rose. Performance 1-6. [Crossref] 48. Crispin Thurlow. 2016. Queering critical discourse studies or/and Performing ‘post-class’ ideologies. Critical Discourse Studies

13:5, 485-514. [Crossref] 49. Chris Courtheyn. 2016. ‘Memory is the strength of our resistance’: an ‘other politics’ through embodied and material

commemoration in the San José Peace Community, Colombia. Social & Cultural Geography 17:7, 933-958. [Crossref] 50. Matthew Reason, Catherine Heinemeyer. 2016. Storytelling, story-retelling, storyknowing: towards a participatory practice of

storytelling. Research in Drama Education: The Journal of Applied Theatre and Performance 21:4, 558-573. [Crossref] 51. Beth Ferholt, Monica Nilsson. 2016. Perezhivaniya as a Means of Creating the Aesthetic Form of Consciousness. Mind, Culture,

and Activity 23:4, 294-304. [Crossref] 52. Joshua Chambers-Letson. 2016. Performance's mode of reproduction I: searching for Danh Võ’s mother. Women & Performance:

a journal of feminist theory 26:2-3, 122-145. [Crossref] 53. Pamela Zapata-Sepúlveda. 2016. One Continent, Three Words, and a Dream. Qualitative Inquiry 22:6, 472-475. [Crossref] 54. María Regina Firmino Castillo. 2016. Dancing the Pluriverse: Indigenous Performance as Ontological Praxis. Dance Research

Journal 48:01, 55-73. [Crossref] 55. Charles Vanover. 2016. Inquiry Theatre. Qualitative Inquiry 22:4, 238-248. [Crossref] 56. Jules Dorey Richmond, David Richmond. Reflections on terrorists of the heart: A Couple’s Performance on Loss and Acceptance

241-253. [Crossref] 57. Callie Spencer Schultz, Karen Paisley. Social and Institutional Power Structures Meet Duoethnography: The Pedagogy of

Negotiating Roles, Dismantling Santa, and “Tilting” bitch 141-161. [Crossref]

58. Jennifer MacLatchy. Performance 193-203. [Crossref] 59. Michael Viega. 2016. Science as Art: Axiology as a Central Component in Methodology and Evaluation of Arts-Based Research

(ABR). Music Therapy Perspectives 34:1, 4-13. [Crossref] 60. Aylwyn Walsh. The Paradox of Dis/appearance: Hunger Strike in Athens as a Performance of Survival 203-221. [Crossref] 61. Sarah Whatley, Amalia G. Sabiescu. Interdisciplinary Collaborations in the Creation of Digital Dance and Performance: A Critical

Examination 17-35. [Crossref] 62. Jonathan Lamy Beaupré. 2015. Action-création : l’art de performance amérindien au Québec. Itinéraires :2015-1. . [Crossref] 63. Peter R. Jensen, Rebecca J. Meisenbach. 2015. Alternative Organizing and (In)Visibility. Management Communication Quarterly

29:4, 564-589. [Crossref] 64. Marie V. Mikkelsen, Scott A. Cohen. 2015. Freedom in mundane mobilities: caravanning in Denmark. Tourism Geographies 17:5,

663-681. [Crossref] 65. Karla Palma. 2015. The Nation and the Domestic. Qualitative Inquiry 21:8, 696-703. [Crossref] 66. Laura Karreman. 2015. Repeating Rosas danst Rosas. Performance Research 20:5, 98-107. [Crossref] 67. Aaron Franks. 2015. Kinder cuts and passionate modesties: the complex ecology of the invitation in participatory research. Area

47:3, 237-245. [Crossref] 68. Sarah Wilbur. 2015. It's about Time Creative placemaking and performance analytics. Performance Research 20:4, 96-103.

[Crossref] 69. Paul Clarke. 2015. The Impact Market. Performance Research 20:4, 112-121. [Crossref] 70. Ashon Crawley. 2015. Otherwise, Instituting. Performance Research 20:4, 85-89. [Crossref] 71. Diane R Collier, Lyndsay Moffatt, Mia Perry. 2015. Talking, wrestling, and recycling: an investigation of three analytic approaches

to qualitative data in education research. Qualitative Research 15:3, 389-404. [Crossref] 72. Daniel F. Johnson-Mardones. 2015. Understanding Critical-Pedagogical-Performative-Autoethnography. Cultural Studies ↔

Critical Methodologies 15:3, 190-191. [Crossref] 73. Julie Burelle. 2015. Theatre in Contested Lands: Repatriating Indigenous Remains. TDR/The Drama Review 59:1, 97-118.

[Abstract] [PDF] [PDF Plus] 74. Virginia J. Flood, François G. Amar, Ricardo Nemirovsky, Benedikt W. Harrer, Mitchell R. M. Bruce, Michael C. Wittmann.

2015. Paying Attention to Gesture when Students Talk Chemistry: Interactional Resources for Responsive Teaching. Journal of Chemical Education 92:1, 11-22. [Crossref]

75. Nondumiso Msimanga. 2015. De-stressing race: documenting the ‘trauma of freedom’ in post-apartheid South Africa from the viewpoint of a black female born during the national state of emergency (1985–1990). South African Theatre Journal 28:1, 17-28. [Crossref]

76. Munjulika Rahman. 2015. Transnational pedagogy of classical dance: politics of ideology between Bangladesh and India. Theatre, Dance and Performance Training 6:1, 85-96. [Crossref]

77. Rebecca Walton, Maggie Zraly, Jean Pierre Mugengana. 2015. Values and Validity: Navigating Messiness in a Community-Based Research Project in Rwanda. Technical Communication Quarterly 24:1, 45-69. [Crossref]

78. Caroline Gatt. The Anthropologist as Ensemble Member: Anthropological Experiments with Theatre Makers 334-356. [Crossref]

79. Laura Kelly, Victoria Foster, Anne Hayes. Evaluating Drama-Based Crime Prevention: Problems, Politics, and New Directions 144-164. [Crossref]

80. Susan Finley, Carmen Vonk, Madeleine L. Finley. 2014. At Home At School. Cultural Studies ↔ Critical Methodologies 14:6, 619-625. [Crossref]

81. Anneliese Cannon, Alissa Blair. 2014. Dramatic Data: The Possibilities of Ethnodramatic Writing for Understanding the Experiences of English Learners in Community College Settings. Critical Inquiry in Language Studies 11:4, 307-333. [Crossref]

82. Imanuel Schipper. 2014. City as Performance. TDR/The Drama Review 58:3, 18-26. [Abstract] [PDF] [PDF Plus] [Supplemental Material]

83. George F. McHendry, Michael K. Middleton, Danielle Endres, Samantha Senda-Cook, Megan O'Byrne. 2014. Rhetorical Critic(ism)'s Body: Affect and Fieldwork on a Plane of Immanence. Southern Communication Journal 79:4, 293-310. [Crossref]

84. Lucía Durá, Laurel J. Felt, Arvind Singhal. 2014. What counts? For whom?. Evaluation and Program Planning 44, 98-109. [Crossref]

85. Larry Russell. 2014. A road less traveled: Vocation, sex, and religion. Emotion, Space and Society 11, 23-27. [Crossref] 86. Xavier Livermon. 2014. Soweto nights: making black queer space in post-apartheid South Africa. Gender, Place & Culture 21:4,

508-525. [Crossref] 87. Marlon M. Bailey. 2014. Engendering space: Ballroom culture and the spatial practice of possibility in Detroit. Gender, Place

& Culture 21:4, 489-507. [Crossref] 88. Claire Maria Chambers. 2014. Epistle and Episteme: Yee Sookyung's The Very Best Statue and the Art Object as Social Space.

Text and Performance Quarterly 34:2, 125-143. [Crossref] 89. Jonathan Heron, Nicholas Johnson, Burç Îdem Dinçel, Gavin Quinn, Sarah Jane Scaife, Áine Josephine Tyrrell. 2014. The Samuel

Beckett Laboratory 2013. Journal of Beckett Studies 23:1, 73-94. [Crossref] 90. Lauren Ristvet. 2014. Between ritual and theatre: political performance in Seleucid Babylonia. World Archaeology 46:2, 256-269.

[Crossref] 91. Luca Tateo. 2014. The Dialogical Dance: Self, Identity Construction, Positioning and Embodiment in Tango Dancers. Integrative

Psychological and Behavioral Science . [Crossref] 92. A. Susan Owen, Peter Ehrenhaus. 2014. The Moore's Ford Lynching Reenactment: Affective Memory and Race Trauma. Text

and Performance Quarterly 34:1, 72-90. [Crossref] 93. Elias Krell. 2013. Contours through Covers: Voice and Affect in the Music of Lucas Silveira. Journal of Popular Music Studies

25:4, 476-503. [Crossref] 94. Nell Haynes. 2013. Global Cholas: Reworking Tradition and Modernity in Bolivian Lucha Libre. The Journal of Latin American

and Caribbean Anthropology 18:3, 432-446. [Crossref] 95. David Johnston. 2013. Professing translation. Target 25:3, 365-384. [Crossref] 96. Nadia Davids. 2013. “It is us”: An Exploration of “Race” and Place in the Cape Town Minstrel Carnival. TDR/The Drama Review

57:2, 86-101. [Abstract] [PDF] [PDF Plus] 97. Isaac Ariail Reed. 2013. Charismatic performance: A study of Bacon’s rebellion. American Journal of Cultural Sociology 1:2,

254-287. [Crossref] 98. Anouck Adrot, Jean-Luc Moriceau. 2013. Introducing Performativity to Crisis Management Theory: An Illustration from the

2003 French Heat Wave Crisis Response. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management 21:1, 26-44. [Crossref] 99. Dustin Bradley Goltz. 2013. The Critical-Norm: The Performativity of Critique and the Potentials of Performance. Text and

Performance Quarterly 33:1, 22-41. [Crossref] 100. Stacy L. Holman Jones. 2013. The Performance Space: Giving an Account of Performance Studies. Text and Performance Quarterly

33:1, 77-80. [Crossref] 101. Joshua Takano Chambers-Letson, Elizabeth W. Son. 2013. Performed Otherwise: The Political and Social Possibilities of Asian/

American Performance. Theatre Survey 54:01, 131-139. [Crossref] 102. Mark J. V. Olson. Hacking the Humanities: Twenty-First-Century Literacies and the ‘Becoming-Other’ of the Humanities

237-250. [Crossref] 103. Coleman Nye. 2012. Cancer Previval and the Theatrical Fact. TDR/The Drama Review 56:4, 104-120. [Abstract] [PDF] [PDF

Plus] 104. Janet Handler Burstein. 2012. Performing Holocaust Memory: Judd Ne'eman's Zitra. AJS Review 36:02, 323-336. [Crossref] 105. Pabalelo G. Mmila. 2012. A ‘subordinate’ genre in the voice of the ‘subordinate’ gender: the storytelling tradition in post-colonial

Botswana. South African Theatre Journal 26:3, 235-245. [Crossref] 106. Patricia G. Davis. 2012. The Other Southern Belles: Civil War Reenactment, African American Women, and the Performance of

Idealized Femininity. Text and Performance Quarterly 32:4, 308-331. [Crossref] 107. Rivka Syd Eisner. 2012. Performing Pain-Taking and Ghostly Remembering in Vietnam. TDR/The Drama Review 56:3, 58-81.

[Abstract] [PDF] [PDF Plus] 108. Victoria Foster. 2012. The pleasure principle: employing arts-based methods in social work research. European Journal of Social

Work 15:4, 532-545. [Crossref] 109. Victoria Foster. 2012. What If? The Use of Poetry to Promote Social Justice. Social Work Education 31:6, 742-755. [Crossref] 110. Deena Dajani. 2012. Telling tales, performing justice: the political subject of the Ḥikāya. Citizenship Studies 16:5-6, 673-688.

[Crossref] 111. Pavithra Vasudevan. 2012. Performance and Proximity: Revisiting environmental justice in Warren County, North Carolina.

Performance Research 17:4, 18-26. [Crossref]

112. Bryant Keith Alexander. 2012. Archiving Performance/Performance as Archive: A Hybrid Book Review and Performance Commentary on E. Patrick Johnson's Sweet Tea. Text and Performance Quarterly 32:3, 269-284. [Crossref]

113. M. Heather Carver, Bryant Keith Alexander. 2012. Introduction: Oral Interpretation and Ethnography in Performance: (Re)Examining the Dangerous Shores 2012. Text and Performance Quarterly 32:3, 187-191. [Crossref]

114. Kate G. Willink, Jacquelynn Suzette. 2012. Taking Theories of Cultural Dialogue From the Classroom to the Street Corner. Cultural Studies ? Critical Methodologies 12:3, 197-212. [Crossref]

115. Claudio Moreira. 2012. I hate chicken breast: a tale of resisting stories and disembodied knowledge construction. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education 25:2, 151-167. [Crossref]

116. MARK FLEISHMAN. 2012. The Difference of Performance as Research. Theatre Research International 37:01, 28-37. [Crossref] 117. Nicole Fabricant. 2012. Symbols in Motion: Katari as Traveling Image in Landless Movement Politics in Bolivia. Latin American

and Caribbean Ethnic Studies 7:1, 1-29. [Crossref] 118. Brian Rusted. 2012. Introduction: From Ethnography of Performance to Performance Ethnography. Canadian Theatre Review

151:-1, 3-6. [Crossref] 119. Marlon M. Bailey. Performance as Intravention 211-230. [Crossref] 120. Barbara Schneider. 2012. Sourcing homelessness: How journalists use sources to frame homelessness. Journalism: Theory, Practice

& Criticism 13:1, 71-86. [Crossref] 121. Darrel Enck-Wanzer. 2011. Tropicalizing East Harlem: Rhetorical Agency, Cultural Citizenship, and Nuyorican Cultural

Production. Communication Theory 21:4, 344-367. [Crossref] 122. Stephen Olbrys Gencarella. 2011. Folk criticism and the Art of critical Folklore Studies. The Journal of American Folklore 124:494,

251-271. [Crossref] 123. Michael K. Middleton, Samantha Senda-Cook, Danielle Endres. 2011. Articulating Rhetorical Field Methods: Challenges and

Tensions. Western Journal of Communication 75:4, 386-406. [Crossref] 124. Lisa William-White. 2011. Scholarship Revolution. Qualitative Inquiry 17:6, 534-542. [Crossref] 125. Jazmin Badong Llana. 2011. Pilgrimage as Utopian Performative for a Post-Colonial Counterpublic. Performance Research 16:2,

91-96. [Crossref] 126. Elizabeth Done, Helen Knowler, Mike Murphy, Tony Rea, Ken Gale. 2011. (Re)writing CPD: creative analytical practices and

the 'continuing professional development' of teachers. Reflective Practice 12:3, 389-399. [Crossref] 127. Misha Myers. 2011. Walking Again Lively: Towards an Ambulant and Conversive Methodology of Performance and Research.

Mobilities 6:2, 183-201. [Crossref] 128. Magdalena Kazubowski-Houston. 2011. Thwarting Binarisms: Performing Racism in Postsocialist Poland. Text and Performance

Quarterly 31:2, 169-189. [Crossref] 129. Natalie Alvarez, Catherine Graham. 2011. Performance and Health. Canadian Theatre Review 146:-1, 3-5. [Crossref] 130. D. Soyini Madison. 2011. The Labor of Reflexivity. Cultural Studies ↔ Critical Methodologies 11:2, 129-138. [Crossref] 131. Devika Chawla, Amardo Rodriguez. 2011. Postcoloniality and the Speaking Body: Revisioning the English Oral Competency

Curriculum. Cultural Studies ↔ Critical Methodologies 11:1, 76-91. [Crossref] 132. Mia Perry. 2011. Theatre and Knowing: Considering the Pedagogical Spaces in Devised Theatre. Youth Theatre Journal 25:1,

63-74. [Crossref] 133. Ross Louis. 2011. Performing New Orleans: Toward a Political Poetics. The Review of Black Political Economy 38:4, 349-362.

[Crossref] 134. Desiree Rowe. 2010. Troubling Violence: A Performance Project. Text and Performance Quarterly 30:4, 470-472. [Crossref] 135. W. Benjamin Myers. 2010. The Placebo as Performance: Speaking Across Domains of Healing. Qualitative Health Research 20:9,

1295-1303. [Crossref] 136. April Nunes Tucker, Amanda Price, Antje Diedrich. Reflections on Performance 178-194. [Crossref] 137. Matthias Bode. 2010. Showing doing. The art-science debate in a performative perspective. Journal of Consumer Behaviour 9:2,

139-155. [Crossref] 138. Roger Lambert, Bailey Snyman. 2010. Crossing boundaries: forging innovative theatrical and research content. South African

Theatre Journal 24:1, 311-326. [Crossref] 139. Kate Donelan. 2010. Drama as Intercultural Education: An Ethnographic Study of an Intercultural Performance Project in a

Secondary School. Youth Theatre Journal 24:1, 19-33. [Crossref]

140. Gordon Coonfield, John Huxford. 2009. News Images as Lived Images: Media Ritual, Cultural Performance, and Public Trauma. Critical Studies in Media Communication 26:5, 457-479. [Crossref]

141. Duška Radosavljevic´. 2009. The Need to Keep Moving. Performance Research 14:3, 45-51. [Crossref] 142. Roger C. Aden, Min Wha Han, Stephanie Norander, Michael E. Pfahl, Timothy P. Pollock, Stephanie L. Young. 2009. Re-

Collection: A Proposal for Refining the Study of Collective Memory and its Places. Communication Theory 19:3, 311-336. [Crossref]

143. Deborah Payne Fisk. 2009. Does Performance Studies Speak to Restoration Theatre?. Literature Compass 6:3, 668-679. [Crossref] 144. Christina S. McMahon. 2009. FROM ADAPTATION TO TRANSFORMATION: SHAKESPEARE CREOLIZED ON

CAPE VERDE'S FESTIVAL STAGE. Theatre Survey 50:01, 35-66. [Crossref] 145. Lisa Trimble. 2009. Transformative conversations about sexualities pedagogy and the experience of sexual knowing. Sex Education

9:1, 51-64. [Crossref] 146. Mark Fleishman. 2009. Knowing Performance: Performance as Knowledge Paradigm for Africa. South African Theatre Journal

23:1, 116-136. [Crossref] 147. Robert Glenn Howard. 2008. The Vernacular Web of Participatory Media. Critical Studies in Media Communication 25:5, 490-513.

[Crossref] 148. Nicole Rogers. 2008. Activism and the Academy. Alternative Law Journal 33:4, 200-208. [Crossref] 149. Shulamith Lev-Aladgem. 2008. Between home and homeland: facilitating theatre with Ethiopian youth. Research in Drama

Education: The Journal of Applied Theatre and Performance 13:3, 275-293. [Crossref] 150. Michaela Django Weinberg. 2008. Paulo and the Birds: Towards a Magical Realist Approach to Ethnography. The Communication

Review 11:4, 346-369. [Crossref] 151. Elizabeth Shaunessy, Patricia Alvarez McHatton. 2008. Language at the Fault Lines. Cultural Studies ? Critical Methodologies

8:3, 325-336. [Crossref] 152. Nicholas Ridout. 2008. Welcome to the Vibratorium. The Senses and Society 3:2, 221-232. [Crossref] 153. Misha Myers. 2008. Situations for living: performing emplacement. Research in Drama Education: The Journal of Applied Theatre

and Performance 13:2, 171-180. [Crossref] 154. Gina Petonito. 2008. Nourishing Our Roots: Voices from AHS's First Five Years. Humanity & Society 32:2, 105-130. [Crossref] 155. Renée Alexander Craft. 2008. "¡LOS GRINGOS VIENEN!" (THE GRINGOS ARE COMING!): FEMALE

RESPECTABILITY AND THE POLITICS OF CONGO TOURIST PRESENTATIONS IN PORTOBELO, PANAMA. Transforming Anthropology 16:1, 20-31. [Crossref]

156. Tony E. Adams. 2008. A Review of Narrative Ethics. Qualitative Inquiry 14:2, 175-194. [Crossref] 157. Margaret Werry. 2008. Pedagogy of/as/and Tourism: Or, Shameful Lessons. Review of Education, Pedagogy, and Cultural Studies

30:1, 14-42. [Crossref] 158. Katrina Bell-Jordan. 2007. Speaking Fluent 'Joke' Pushing the racial envelope through comedic performance on Chappelle's Show.

Performance Research 12:3, 74-90. [Crossref] 159. Renee Alexander Craft, Meida Mcneal, Mshai Mwangola, Queen Meccasia Zabriskie. 2007. The Quilt: Towards a twenty-first-

century black feminist ethnography. Performance Research 12:3, 55-73. [Crossref] 160. Judith Hamera. 2007. DWIGHT CONQUERGOOD AND THE FIELD OF PERFORMANCE STUDIES. Cultural Studies

21:6, 805-809. [Crossref] 161. D. Soyini Madison. 2007. CO-PERFORMATIVE WITNESSING. Cultural Studies 21:6, 826-831. [Crossref] 162. Victoria Foster. 2007. 'WAYS OF KNOWING AND SHOWING': IMAGINATION AND REPRESENTATION IN FEMINIST

PARTICIPATORY SOCIAL RESEARCH. Journal of Social Work Practice 21:3, 361-376. [Crossref] 163. Devika Chawla. 2007. The First Disciple: A Generative Autobiographical Performance From an Ethnographic Field. Cultural

Studies ↔ Critical Methodologies 7:4, 357-377. [Crossref] 164. Amardo Rodriguez. 2007. Predicaments, Dilemmas, and the Challenge of Knowledge. Howard Journal of Communications 18:1,

57-68. [Crossref] 165. Monika Hogan. 2006. Making Contact: Teaching, Bodies, and the Ethics of Multiculturalism. The Review of Education, Pedagogy

& Cultural Studies 28:3-4, 355-366. [Crossref] 166. C. Richard King. 2006. Defacements/Effacements. Journal of Sport and Social Issues 30:4, 340-352. [Crossref]

167. C. Richard King. 2006. Stealing Cultural Studies: Dialogues With Norman K. Denzin. Journal of Sport and Social Issues 30:4, 383-394. [Crossref]

168. D. Soyini Madison. 2006. The Dialogic Performative in Critical Ethnography. Text and Performance Quarterly 26:4, 320-324. [Crossref]

169. Arvind Singhal, Elizabeth Rattine-Flaherty. 2006. Pencils and Photos as Tools of Communicative Research and Praxis. International Communication Gazette 68:4, 313-330. [Crossref]

170. Mindy Fenske. 2006. The Movement of Interpretation: Conceptualizing Performative Encounters with Multimediated Performance. Text and Performance Quarterly 26:2, 138-161. [Crossref]

171. Brian Rusted. 2006. Performing Visual Discourse: Cowboy Art and Institutional Practice1. Text and Performance Quarterly 26:2, 115-137. [Crossref]

172. Michael Christie. 2006. Transdisciplinary Research and Aboriginal Knowledge. The Australian Journal of Indigenous Education 35, 78-89. [Crossref]

173. Joyce Canaan. 2005. Developing a pedagogy of critical hope. LATISS: Learning and Teaching in the Social Sciences 2:3, 159-174. [Crossref]

174. Brian Rusted. 2005. PERFORMING THE VISUAL NORTH. Cultural Studies 19:2, 253-285. [Crossref] 175. James A. Anderson, Geoffrey Baym. 2004. Philosophies and Philosophic Issues in Communication, 1995–2004. Journal of

Communication 54:4, 589-615. [Crossref] 176. Bryant Keith Alexander. 2004. Passing, Cultural Performance, and Individual Agency: Performative Reflections on Black Masculine

Identity. Cultural Studies ↔ Critical Methodologies 4:3, 377-404. [Crossref] 177. Sherwin K. Bryant. 2004. Enslaved rebels, fugitives, and litigants: the resistance continuum in colonial quito. Colonial Latin

American Review 13:1, 7-46. [Crossref] 178. E. Patrick Johnson. 2003. Strange Fruit: A Performance about Identity Politics. TDR/The Drama Review 47:2, 88-116. [Abstract]

[PDF] [PDF Plus] 179. . Bibliography 249-261. [Crossref] 180. . Strange Fruit 179-212. [Crossref] 181. Psyence Vedava. Exploring Psytrance as Technognosis: 170-205. [Crossref]