The Product Of Culture Cultural Studies Essay

Published: Last Edited:

This essay has been submitted by a student. This is not an example of the work written by our professional essay writers.

Between the ever-elusive stability of culture and the certain presence of the product of culture, Peter Brook (Pavis 1996:63-66) mediates this paradoxical concept of culture into three types of broad forms of definitions. It is good to understand that Peter characterizes these three forms of culture as always, and continuously celebrating both positive and negative occurrences in culture. Firstly, he defines culture as the "culture of the state". Celebrations take place in a form of expression of unity that establishes a singular culture of the state. Secondly, Peter refers to the "culture of the individual". Individuals do attempt to draw form themselves, sometimes in opposition to an inadequate form of the culture of state, to create their own expression of individual culture and identity. Peter describes this as the "celebration of the ego". Both of these types of culture in Peter Brook's perspective are inadequate: in the culture of the state's limitation to unify as one culture, and the individual culture's limitation as it can only celebrate is own ego as a culture. Peter emphasizes that because the concepts of art and culture always connects with truth/reality, that only through unification and a cohesiveness of culture of state and individual culture can art represent truth. This is where Peter Brook pertains to his third type of Culture. A culture that has no fixity, and is ever-changing in its "dynamic" configuration of relationships of individual egos as a part of a whole.

1.2) Raymond Williams (1983:87-88) firstly contextualize the concept of culture as a progressive meaning of the word, as a "noun of process: the tending of something…" This statement describes culture as a dynamic cultivation, which is later on defined as the cultivation of "natural growth", a "tending" to a conscious and unconscious habit of "human development". One may discern form this notion Williams presents, that culture is the active process in which individuals build themselves up and progresses themselves, a kind of human gardening if one will.

In Keefe and Murray's (2007: 250) focus on Patrice Peeves unearthing of culture as a hereditary "interiorized" part of human individuals (Camilleri, 1982: 16-17), Peeves reminds us that, "[c]ulture is opposed to nature" and it is "artificially" constructed.

Keefe, J, Murray, S. 2007. Physical Theatre: A critical reader. New York: Routledge

In Keefe and Murray's (2007: 250) focus on Patrice Peeves unearthing of culture as a hereditary "interiorized" part of human individuals, as Peeves cites Camilleri; Peeves reminds us that, "[c]ulture is opposed to nature" and it is "artificially" constructed which enforces certain "norm[s]" as she quotes Levi-Strauss.

1.1.3) Culture to our personal understanding is an essential part of not only and individual search for truth, but to the belonging to a collective. It is a very natural process, although one could say it is man made process. It is because of this possibility of human growth and change, that culture is never static, but interacts with other cultures, and individuals alike. Culture is not always necessarily a positive or negative construct, as it may oppress certain collective regulations that give belonging and safety to an individual.

1.1.4) From the movie 'The Lord of the Flies' directed by Harry Hook (1990) from the literature of William Golding, the boy named Ralph and Piggy discovers a shell on the beach and through the trumpeting sound that it makes, they use it to herald all the boys together on the stranded island. The boys celebrate being united again, and begin to establish a new community in a sense, starting with a man made use of the conch. The conch then may be argued to become a central organic process of cultivating authority amongst the stranded community of boys. Later on in the antagonist, Jack challenges the authority of Ralph holding the conch, by his celebration of his own ego as the best hunter, coming in conflict with the 'culture of the state'. Conflict emerges then from the different ways the boys celebrate their newly established culture, some wanting so badly obtain stability for survival but never obtaining a rigid personal or state cultureit on the island.

1.2 Cross- Cultural theatre

2.1) Cross-cultural theatre is combination of 'material' and 'symbolic', 'objects and properties' in a 'public performance practice' from different cultures. This can be found in the story, the way it is presented or planned as well as how it is read by the audience ( Lo & Gilbert 2002:31). Stemming from interactions between different groups and negotiations for space it has almost become a norm for theatre to be cross cultural, discussing 'power relations' and discuss certain issues that come along with hybridity, the 'cross' in cross-cultural having many negative associations like deception (Lo & Gilbert 2002:31,32). Cross-cultural theatre is made up of 'multicultural-', 'postcolonial-' and 'intercultural theatre' that have their own subgroups (Lo & Gilbert 2002:33). Firstly multicultural theatre with a lowercase 'm' implies 'blind casting' where cultures in a cast are mixed not to highlight problems no attempting to question 'hegemonic structures' but rather maintains them. This form of theatre is often criticized for its western form that imposes western values on all the characters (Lo & Gilbert 2002:33). Multiculturalism with a capital 'M' is almost the complete opposite, speaking to marginalization and 'cultural diversity' moving towards change (Lo & Gilbert 2002:33, 34).

Then post-colonial theatre moves away from colonialist theatre principles dealing with 'imperialism', 'explicit' or 'implicitly' dealing with the 'cultural hegemony that underlies', education, government and social economical systems. It can be 'syncretic theatre' that puts homegrown concepts, ideas and situations in western play structures (Lo & Gilbert 2002:35). 'Non-syncretic theatre' on the other hand that is either entirely western or local communicating postcolonial problems(Lo & Gilbert 2002:36).

Intercultural theatre is problematic because it reinforces the binary of west and other. It is a hybrid that develops from a purposeful contact between cultures but pieces from each culture will be lost in the process that in the end only leads to acknowledgement of the existence of the other if the presentation is focused around the self (Lo & Gilbert 2002:36-40). Divided in to two sub groups intercultural theatre can be 'transcultural theatre' that moves beyond the culture specific codes to a 'pre-expressivity' (Lo & Gilbert 2002:37). Or 'Extracultural theatre' that uses nonwestern art to inform and analyses western art forms(Lo & Gilbert 2002:38).

2.2) Cross-cultural theatre under goes certain "public performance practices" which is based on specific facets of theatre such as "performance aesthetics, production processes and/or reception and interpretation of a community", Jacqueline Lo and Helen Gilbert (2002: 31) designate. The process of these public performing practices and inevitably the product of performance, whether in theatre or in another forms, may become a jointing point and basis, one may say, where different cultures come together and interact so that may exchange their culture (Gilbert, H and Lo, J 2002: 31-32). These cross-cultural exchanges in theatre, are not a recent invention, though, and have been present in theatre since ancient times according to Ericka Fischer-Lichte (Patrice Pavis 1996: 27-28). The cultures exchange may than be described as a truly intrinsic and unavoidable aspect of theatre. It is only more recent though, that culture and culture in theatre have become so ready to cross cultural divides and "negotiate… temporally (across history) and spatially (across geographical and social categories)" (Gilbert, H and Lo, J 2002: 31), and this because of the availability of fast communication medias etc. as implied by Fischer-Lichte (Pavis, P 1996: 28). Historic, geographic, and social-political context of cross-cultural theatre one may interpret as very essential for these "negotiations", and Gilbert and Lo (2000: 31) emphasizes space specific locations, to avoid any misreading or interpretations of any cross-cultural themes and theories. "[N]egotiations" mentioned previously may have enabled theatre to move more swiftly through the boundaries of cultural differences, to give birth to a term, characteristic of cross-cultural theatre - the term "hybrid". Hybridization means: the "cross breed", the borrowing across different "art forms, culture [s], and/or identity" in theatre, because of the process of different cultures interacting and exchanging these - Gilbert and Lo continues (2002: 32). These interactions of culture exchange may be seen as hybridization, a process to in a sense create a new mixed culture out of the exchange of other cultures. Furthermore, this hybridization can be seen as the product of new and unique created meanings and "theatre aesthetics". One may agree with Helen Gilbert and Jacqueline Lo that Cross-cultural theatre should readily be interpreted, and enjoyed.

Cross-cultural theatre may have come to be seen as an "umbrella term"; and as this encompassing term, it may be interpret not only to create an opportunity for harmonious interaction between cultures when "crossing" the cultural boundaries, but also the contending of hegemonic powers as to "cross" or "double-cross" cultures as well (Gilbert and Lo 2002: 32). Cross-cultural theatre may further be categorized into the fields of multicultural, post-colonial, and intercultural (Gilbert, H & Lo, J 2002: 32). Let us discuss these categories which Cross-Culture comprises of briefly:

Intercultural is defined as a relationship of two opposing cultures locked in a continuous authority negotiation. Both culture's differences prevent people to relent full power to the other. In this struggle, people are divided. In this divide between power struggles intercultural theatre means to create an opportunity for "contamination" of both opposing cultural powers which demands compromise from both sides. This "contamination" of cultural powers strives to joining people in unity and celebration of difference rather than dividing cultures (Glibert, H & Lo,J 2002: 44). This "contamination" is termed "hybridity" (Glibert, H & Lo,J 2002: 44). Bullock and Trombley (2000: 550) defines multicultural as the "approach" that many cultures exists together, and distinction of cultures is made on the basis of "… race, ethnicity and language". Post-colonialism according to Bullock and Trombley (2000: 669) refers to a specific "theory" addressing people groups which were oppressed as "subordinate parts of… colonial powers". Post-colonial theatre is described by Fischer-Lichte (Pavis, P (ed) 1996: 35) to "turn its back on these products of colonial products" and rediscover the "subordinate groups'" own uniqueness again in theatre.

2.3) Cross-Cultural theatre may be personally understood to be a material or symbolic space of performance where the biased history of theatre meets with the ever-changing and growing diversity of culture. Theatre of the cross-culture does not deny the historical context of oppressive theatre, no matter how negative its legacy, but in fact does strive to assimilate cultures of the past and the present to be continuously re-represented, embellished, transformed and liberated through cultural negotiations within this space - called intercultural hybridization. The aim one may say of cross-cultural theatre is to work towards a future where exclusivity hegemonic ways of performing is abolished, instead re-establishing the inherent interrelationship of cultures as equally informing, through the assistance of the diverse cultures acting as ambassadors to this one cause of multiculturalist unification. Cross cultural theatre in conclusion is not only to become a beacon to remind us of and challenge the oppressive powers at be such as in colonialist theatre, or even to grieve for the forcibly contaminated oppressed culture of subverted theatres, but through the post-colonial theatre to 're-territorialize' the tainted cultures to a new blended identity in coexistence.

2.4) In Dr Meyer Taub's play, 'Die Book' ( 2012), one of the character relationships which struck me as very cross-cultural where the two brothers waiting for their father's return. The character of the older brother which retained the most favour and rights as the heir of their father's estate, was played by a native african actor, in contrast to the supportive brother played by a caucasian actor. It is not only the inversion of power between the white colonialist assuming the submissive role and the black previously oppressed obtaining the cultural status that is an indication of Multicultural theatre, but also the fact that the black brother masters the colonialistic 'look', a form of multiculturalism. Most interesting though, was the fact that in the context of 'Die book' the possibility of inter-ethnic familial relations is made quite normative and is exemplifying of multicultural indiscriminative casting. A form of hybridization may be identified, one may argue,because of the black actor's character's acceptance of the father's and brother's white colonialist customs as his own inter-cultural identity.

1.3. Imagined Communities

3.1) Anderson's notion of imagined community speaks to the idea of community being a group that people identify with, but it is imagined because the individuals that form part of it do not know one another or have personal interaction, the only thing they have in common the vicinity in which they live or the knowledge they have. This prevents the community from being bound by time or space, and the relationship is defined by the way the community is imagined. Anderson sees media as a form of "nation building" and these nations are differentiated by the manner in which they are imagined and not by their 'truthfulness' (Vierkant 2006:4). The shared idea of community, of media's audience, is what creates an Imagined community that remains a stable point over time (Vierkant 2006: 16).

1.3.2) According to Gellener Nationalism has nothing to do with a sudden self-awareness of nations, but is the creation thereof as means to economical and social ends (Anderson 2006:6). Beyond the ever changing boundaries of nations are other nations, creating a group indirectly with a certain amount of comradeship, means creating an out group, othering what is seen as other nations because it is no defined through a binary, through this imagined communities keep the 'culture of politics' inplace (Anderson 2006:7; Bottomley 1992: 132). Imagined communities are tied together by various cultural frameworks like, shared language, religion, signs and the idea of centrality and "dynastic realms" but they are also substitutions for them (Anderson 2006:13, 22). Being part of the same society also causes us to see individuals being linked, concurrently moving through the same time as one "sociological organism" even if the 'we' might never meet (Anderson 2006:26). Being part of the same whole helps establishing identity and can be seen as a point of stability because it categorizes the self as fitting into a certain category of culture(Bottomley 1992: 132).

3.3) Andersons notion of imagined communities, is for Anderson a way to define a nation. It is a large whole consisting of many different individuals that are not tied together by their real and personal relationships but rather commonalities that they share, they are indirectly related by where they live and in some cases what they read and language. But through media development these communities have moved beyond only nation in its normal sense and into commonalities, like gender and sexuality(Bottomley 1992:132). Commonalities that to some extent implicate imagined ideas and experience that are shared, because a common community they classify themselves as being a part of (Vierkant 2006:4) (Bottomley 1992:132). This 'imaginary community' is socially constructed to manipulate social and economic variables, imagining people of a 'nation' to see themselves as a part of something bigger that helps to place themselves within certain social roles and construct an identity placing itself within 'language and culture'. This establishes a binary between self and other, establishing difference that can lead to the alienation and marginalization of the other, reinforcing 'cultural politics' and stereotypes(Bottomley 1992:132).

An individual can be formed, shaped and belong to a variety of imagined communities. It gives the individual or 'community' a form of uniformity to be able to conform and categorize the self. This informs the individuals experience, expectations and reactions to society (Bottomley 1992:132). By portraying certain social ideas theatre can strengthen the political ideas of the 'communities' unity. It can also connect the audience over time barriers performing and reading text that have been performed before with another audience forming an imagined community of, for example, people that have seen Macbeth and related with its themes.

3.4) A University can be seen as an 'Imaginary community' because even though a student doesn't know all the people on campus, they share common spaces like the campus library and cafeteria when something happens to one of them like a medal at the Olympics, or somebody goes missing there is a feeling of nationalism because student identify with one another.

1.4. Identity

4.1) Identity is not rigid way of thinking, existence or underlying reason for actions, controlled by a 'true self' that exists within the individual but rather a space between overlapping discourses. According to Hall identity is constantly changing, developing, splitting, changing with the relationship between the other and the self, it isn't a stable point but rather constantly adjusting to what social role and power relationship needs to be performed.(Fearon 1999: 5)

Identity asks who, and what is the individual and where does that individual fit into society, the question can not be taken out of the context it is asked in (Fearon 1999: 13). Identity can be social or personal constructions, social being different social labels and roles, that change as society changes (Fearon 1999: 16), used to categorize individuals according to different social groups (Fearon 1999: 10). As a personal construction it is value- and belief systems, drives and characteristics that an individual sees as something that makes the individual different, putting them into a certain social group (Fearon 1999: 11).

4.2) The notion of identity is that of a slippery one to define, (Baumeister :269) states that If the idea of identity should have a definition, certain criteria will have to be followed in order to define it.

According to (Baumeister :269) there are major factors of criteria to be followed in explaining the notion of identity, one being the notion of continuity and two the concept "differentiation". Continuity stands for "sameness over time" as (Baumeister :269) states that part of owning an identity is to be the same type of person over a certain period in time, for example one must be the same person a week ago as one is today which then in return contributes to you own sense of identity .Differentiation plays with the idea that certain beliefs and attitudes distinguish one person from another one, people can be identified with race, gender, language and even family.

(Lawler 2008:2) argues that one vital representation of the term identity balances itself on the concept that not only are we as individuals "identical with ourselves" , we are actually in the same breath indistinguishable to others. (Lawler 2008:2) states that Western beliefs of identity depends on this mode of understanding so that people are comprehended as being identical as well as poles apart at the same time.

4.3) Chris Weedon (2004: underscores firstly the universal "need" of human individuals, and secondly human individuals' "communal existence" as one human race. One of these universal needs may be interpreted as a need for individual identity. The fact that humans are a "knowing subject", include individuals in a process of submergence in interactions and response to a "communal existence" called "interpellation" to create produce "language" and "meaning" (Weedon, C 2004: 5-6). This process of interpellation relates the individual to specific belief, familial, pedagogic, and government structures in the individual's environment, referred to as "Ideological state apparatus" (Weedon, C 2000: 6). Identity one may say is "performed" as "Ideological… signs, symbols and practices" as a product of an individual's observation and relation to such "apparatus'" (Weedon 2004: 6-7). Noonan (2006: [sp]) adds that identity is a parallel identification of an individual to these "apparatus'", as well as people performing signs and symbols, through which similarities between them and the individual are found. One may deduct through the previously mentioned process of identification that individuals' outside world influences identity, tremendously. Weedon (2004: 6) continues that identity is "… socially, culturally… and institutionally…" "… assigned…" What we may conclude from this is that, identity is learned through identification. Identity is copied in symbolic actions, made possible by the communal existence of human individuals.

Although, Bucholtz and Hall (2005: 586) agree that the social and cultural outer world influences identity extensively, there is some contribution that the individual's inner life has to the construction of identity. Identity may be defined as a multifaceted concept "constructed through experience" of an individual, not fixed, and ever changing (Bullock and Trombley 2000: 413). With this Bullock and Trombley (2000: 413) inspire the regular notion of identity as more than the "stable… enduring sense" of self but an individual experience of an environment through the self. Identity contains influencing factors from the individual's background such as ethnicity, sexuality, class identification altering identity, which Bullock and Trombley states an individual in turn "base[s]… on [the] body image" (Bullock & Trombley 2002: 413). Language is one other of the bases' that identity is expressed through apaert from the body, according to Bucholtz and Hall (2005: 586). Language usage influenced by an individual's background, therefore renders identity as not simply individually independently constructed. Identity could then be described as collaborations between what factors provide an individual to identify with, and the individual's experience thereof. In comparison with the first definition of identity, the individual may also have a place in the construction of identity then. The human individual's own needs and rights attributed by Weedon (2004: earlier, could describe the need at least the contribution to human identity as well. A form of attempt of independent construction of identity may be what Weedon (2004: 7) talks about as "counter-identification", against hegemonic superimposed identities in an individual's environment.

1.5 Subjectivity

5.1. According to (Mansfield 2000:5) subjectivity is first and foremost an occurrence and continues to to permanently remain primarily receptive to irregularity,unpredictability, variation and "un-self consciousness". Subjectivity refers to a non-figurative or universal principle that challenges our severance into clear and definite selves. This separation according to (Mansfield 2002:2) supports us as beings to envision that or helps us to into distinct selves and that encourages us to imagine that, or simply helps us to come to grip with the fact that our internal lives inescapably seem to include other people of general experience. With this concept in mind it can be seen that the subject is constantly connected to always linked to an entity externally present.

(Mansfield 2000:3) states that to "etyomologogically" to "be the subject" means to be positioned beneath. According to (Mansfield 2000:3) one is permanently "subject to" or of an object or item. The word subject according to (Mansfield 2000:3) thus suggests that the self is not an isolated or disconnected unit but rather one that acted as the fork in the road between universal truths and expanded values.

(Hall 2004:3) believes that he idea of subjectivity entails a level of reflection and "self consciousness" about identity whilst simultaneously following a multitude of boundaries and margins that are frequently unpredictable, unforeseeable restrictions on our capacity to completely understand the concept of identity. Subjectivity according to (Hall 2004:3) as an important concept encourages us to contemplate the birth and foundation of identity.

For theorist Sigmund Freud, sited in (Mansfield 2009:9) we as humans aren't according to born with our own integral sense of subjectivity as it is only introduced or inserted into us as a result of our own encounter with the body, specifically in terms of sex and gender of our family surroundings where it is common that the parents are extremely influential in. Only after that experience according to Freud sited in (Mansfield 2000:9) do we achieve a sense of intact subjectivity.

5.2.) Subjectivity speaks to the emotions the individual personally forms, which influence his or her ideas and perspectives about the environment the individual lives in; this is indicative of a partial perspective of the individual, according to Williams (1983: 311). Mandik (1998: [sp]) explains Nagel's idea that subjectivity links with an individual's personal perspective, and Mandik furthers describe this link as a "conscious experience" unexplainable by scientists. It is then clear that the subjectivity of an individual is extensively interdependent on his or her environment, the social and cultural milieu an individual must live in, which makes the individual subjective. Through the theorizing of "Lacanian psychoanalysis", the idea of subjectivity substitutes the "'self'… 'individual'" with subject as a product of subjectivity in his or her environment (Bullock, A & Trombley, S 2002: 837-838). A subject, different from a human individual, may be described as functioning through "roles constructed by dominant cultural and ideological values" (Chandler 2002: [sp]). Lycan also described subjectivity as the way imagery are produced and "represented" by a subject because he or she interacts with ideological structures, and how in turn this imagery are reproduced as "indexical concept(s)" used by the subject (Mandik 1998: [sp]). One may say then that the use of language, is such an indexical symbol (a tool), which sprouts from the individual, yes, but is influenced by subjectivity of the individual just as much because of the cultural and social ideologies determining how language must be used as a symbol.

Turner (1995: 145) attributes the body as "a material object…" as well as "… a living and acting organism". This duel state of the body then acts as a plane of subjectivity because the body becomes a "fundamental property of being alive and its consequent capacity of volition action, sensory perception, knowing and feeling" in a social and cultural environment (Turner 1995: 166). In other words, the body complementarity can become a subjective "product" of "appropriation" because it is "socially informed" by environmental ideologies, according to Bourdieu; as well as a "producer of this process" as a subject to its environment (Turner 1995: 145).

5.3. The characteristics of the subject form the bases that informs the perspective the subject is interpreted from. Meaning depends on interpretation even if it seems to be fact. (Nealon & Giroux 2003:36). In turn this means the construction of identity does not only rely on the self but also on the external world that is experienced and the self is compared and shaped according to.

A Subject is always secondary to something else or defined by its relative relationship to something else. A subject isn't unique but defined by its 'context', 'culturally', 'socially economically' and in relation to the other. A subject can be anyone fulfilling a certain role at a certain time regardless of the individuals own sense of characteristics of selfhood. It is a external construction of the self that is mediated by social codes and regulations, only responding to the context, seeing the self as existing according to pre-existing labels the self being part of a bigger picture.(Nealon & Giroux 2003: 36-38) Subjectivity develops from contact with the body, gender and sexuality. Subjectivity puts the self in a position where it is conscious of the self as well as the social codes and boundaries it operates in, this helps the individual fit into society.

5.4. Taking a look at the production of 'Red Light Canteen' (2010) it is apparent how the socio-political hegemonies within the relationships amongst the woman in the miners town of 'Pilgrim's-Rest' the 19 hundred are subjective characters and their surroundings. The upper-class woman are pressuring Bessie to mary since she works day and night to look after the shop and her brother, she needs a man they imply, although Bessie is headstrong and self-reliant. Bessie is subjecvtive to the brunt of the social class' rejection as her ideological constructed environment informs her lifestyle as an outcast By working hard to make a success of her business Bessie willfully represents her work and herself as a subject as in opposition to her informing environment, she "re-identifies" with the hegemonic codes and regulations as Weedon (2004: 7) would put it, and in turn through her subjective self informs her environment with deviation.

1.6. Body as conceptual construct

6.1) One of the most basic ways to define the body could be through Dreyfus' (2007: [sp]) discourse, that the basic body is anatomical because it contains ligaments of specific proportion, and that the body is functional as it contains specific "abilities". In addition, Gilbert and Tompkin's (1996: 202) go as far as to emphasize the body as a primary "physical symbol" above all other symbols and signifiers in the theatre. This statement is especially attributed to the fact that the "anatomical" body has these specific "abilities", functionally, to "move" and "mime". Through these abilities, the body is enabled to express stories and even space, particularly in theatre.

6.2) According to Lacan's theories, the body is an 'inscribed signifier', 'suffering' from these inscriptions the body finds a sense of belonging, and is to some extent owned by the Other, this contributes to identity (Pluth 2007: 23,57). When one looks at the theories of Freud the psychology of an individual is also reflected through the body, this is even drawn through the developmental stages of psychoanalytic theory (Pluth 2007:60). Butler problematizes the body as a signifier that can not be described and understanded fully by only using language but it also does not stand apart from language to 'resist it' a dead end, it ties into Lacan's notion of the 'real'. (Pluth 2007: 145). When looking at the carnivalesque, the grotesque body is celebrated that which is considered to be 'private' to bourgeois society is displayed out and in the open attacking classical theatre aesthetics. In this the body is no longer isolated and alienated by it's inscriptions but part of It's surroundings (Spackman 2000:10).

Early Avant garde theatre assumed that the body is not bound and can move past ideological ideas, but according to Spackman in a post brechtian political theatre the body is 'tortured', 'traumatized' or 'trapped', the body serving as a political sign for the psychological and social situation of the protagonist (Spackman 2000:11). Gender, sexuality and sex representations are mediated by the body and performs according to hegemonic representation as male being equal to logic, in the realm of intellect whereas the female body is ritualistic in her performance, emotional and the 'matter' rather than the mind, even though these notions are challenged by queer theorists it often still persists (Spackman 2000:11)

6.3) Referring to Monro and Coetzee's (2007: 99) the body is a corporeal/ physical instrument that encompasses "lived experiences" embodied through action/s. Merley -Pontey (1962:146) describes these embodied action/s an enablement of the body to interact with the outside world. One may come to conclude by refering to Manro and Coetzee that the body may be seen as to be constructed as a sort of plane, on which influences of events shape the body's sense of self, as Gilbert and Tompkins suggest by quoting Foucault (1996: 202). Not only could the body become such a constructed plane, but also more significantly, that it could be constructed into a foreground, a center plane of such bodily communication. The fact that about 70% of daily communication is physical, reinforces how the body can become a central plane in human communication Laura Marshal would remind us (2002: iv). Goven et el. (2007: 166) describes the body that communicates - this foreground of communication - as socially influenced and constructed when and as the body interacts with its environment. The body then couldn't simply be an anatomical and functional structure existing in isolation. Instead, the body may be seen as to become a physical and social construct that serves as foreground (center plane) to communicate interactions with its environment, called life. One May realize then the urgency that the performer takes authority of communicating effectively through the body. Thus body, and the performer's body as primary symbol in theatre, must become a plane, foreground that reflects truthful and clear communication of its "lived experiences" (Marshal, L; 2002: iv).

The question is though, what information do our bodies communicate? If the body may be seen as a plane of communication, Turner (1995: 144-145) aids us to comprehend the human body's "condition" in which it communicates, through he's quote:

"site of the individual consciousness, sensation, and desires, and of some… social controls… as well as… cultural representations of the material and social world, and as both a material object and a category of discourse, the body appears to offer itself as a basis for new and different theorization of the social-cultural dimension of individual existence…".

These "theorization" of "social-cultural dimensions" pertains to the communicative body in this way: in that as a foreground for communication, the body is controlled and conceptualized in its way of communication and what information it communicates through the "appropriation" of its identity; Turner explains (1995: 145). The body is submerged in society subjective to cultural influence which constructs identity, Turner means. These appropriations are essentially ideologies that conventionalize certain acceptable behaviors on the body as an communicative plane. These controlled constructions imposed on the body is described as inherently ingrained in the body as "cultural inscriptions" by Bullock and Trombley (2000:89). In opposition to the last statement, Gilbert and Tompkins (1996: 204) strives to empower the body through quoting Elizabeth Grosz' whom describes it as posing a sense of irrepressible, irregular possible danger to such appropriating cultural inscriptions. She says that the body through a plane of "knowledge-power" which can presents resistance in substituting for "reinscription" through a self-communicative way as alternative. This mediation of the body as plane of cultural inscription or self-communicativeness, Turner's (1995: 145) statement rings true: that the body as a plane of individuality and at the same time a "limitation of individuality".

.6.4) The body of Lea, in Dr M. Taub's adaptation of "Die Boek", with her pale white skin and her dress presents her as someone from East European Jewish descent. This imposes on her character a certain historical and contextual background that separates her from the other characters in the play who are painted and wear darker clothes for the most of the production. They way the bodies engage with space is also different, where Lea's character does not take up a lot of space in her movements the other characters are over the top making an event of almost every gesture because of the almos vacuum like world they find themselves in.

1.7. Embodyment

7.1) Embodiment according to (Maclachlan 2004:2) is associated with the concept and identification of an "abstract idea" with a physical body or unit. The abstract idea can be seen as an assortment of ideas or entities such as the self, emotional feelings ad even the idea of "nation". When these abstract ideas are entered and recognized in the body (Maclachlan 2004:2) states that it is widely referred to becoming embodied and personified or as "incarnate".

These combined beliefs are thus according to (Maclachlan 2004:2) and (Noland 2009:9) obtained and depicted as "individual and "lived" at.

(Waskul & Van der Riet 2002:487) states that embodiment is the process whereby collective behaviours and beliefs, acquired through acculturation are rendered "individual and "lives" equally to the intensity of the human body. The "object-body" according to (Waskul & Van der riet 2002:487) is shaped, felt or even in some cases transformed and altered as the "subject-body" (Waskul &Van der Riet 2002:488) stated that in the process of embodiment an individual does not merely "inhabit" the stagnant abstract idea or object but is embodied through a smooth, active and fluid process of existence.

1.8. Abject

8.1) According to Kristiva, the abject is not an "object" which may be "imagined or "named", but instead the abject is an inescapable life cycle that creates certain meanings an individual identifies with (Roudiez 1982: 1-2). This meaning of the abject creates both a revolting and attracting response in an individual (Roudiez 1982: 135 -136). Kristave means that the "revolt" an individual experiences about the abject the person does not flee from, because it finds meaning within the revulsion (Roudiez 1982: 2). In fact, the individual finds "fascination" within the abject as it comes from the self, as an "expulsion of the self" (Roudiez 1982: 3, 45). The abject as part of the individual infringes on other parameter of meaning which draws an individual away from "himself/ [herself]" as a constructed "identity" in opposition to this repulsion of the abject (Roudiez 1982: 1-4). The revolting meaning of the abject, one must emphasize, has nothing to do with the literal being unclean as such, but rather with the improper disorientation of "identy…system…and order" (Roudiez 1982: 4). In its ambiguity, one may say, the abject challenges the parameter or construction of the self, which is opposition to the repulsive "Other" (Roudiez 1982: 3).

1.8.2. The abject calls-upon or "hails" (Weedon, C 2000: 5-6) the individual in fact, but does not allow an individual to obtain a certain independent "identity… system… order" completely apart from the abject (Reudiez 1983: 2). Thus the abject is neither fully part of the self nor the "Other". Kristiva describes this as the abject as an "ego", absorbed by the "superego", the self. The ego is rejected by the superego, which gives it meaning and purpose, but in its expulsion, the ego never stops challenging its "master" (Roudiez 1982: 3). One may say the abject is a "narcissistic crisis" as cited by Roudiez (1982: 14), in which power relations negotiates continuously between the self's painful partition from the infringing "Other" named the abject (Oliver 1993: 59-60). In an incapability to identify the abject as an "other" to be separate from the self, Kristeva(1982: 4) explains the notion, that the self will remove the revulsion of the abject "violently", causing pain to the self.

It is in this ambiguous attraction to the improper disorientating abject, which infringes on society's parameters, the danger of subverting meaningful morality or norms is pinpointed (Roudiez 1982: 4). The ultimate example of the abject is a corpse "without God and outside science" according to Schwenger (2000: 399). When a being is dying the parameters that once kept its body in check, compromises its counter action against the repugnant abjection because of bodily functions: through its defecation, vomiting and other improper nature, which is closely related to the abject. Thus Scwhenger (2000: 400) concludes that it is because the decaying of the being that it becomes neither an object nor a subject, and both, because it is powerless to withstand the infringement of the abject completely, until death.

8.3. The abject is at the same time a part of the self and standing outside it as something the self does not want to associate with but at the same time is intrigued by. It is ambiguous, because it does not stay within any boundaries, implying that it does not fit into social expectations and norms. The abject is rejected by the self because it is unpleasant but can not be left alone. This puts the self into a constant power struggle with the abject, to keep it in check, to fit in. The abject needs to be purged, cleaned out of the system like vomiting, or the manifestations thereof needs to be destroyed.

8.4. An example of this can be found in the watching of torture porn, like the Saw movies, where people are put in situations where they are in extreme pain where every single disgusting detail of guts splattering everywhere is shown. The viewer covers his eyes terrified and deeply disturbed but still peaks too see what is going on.

1.9. Postdramatic theatre

1.9.1) Post-dramatic theatre is a theatre form that is more performance centered going outside the restrictions that dramatic theatre poses. From a phenomenological point of view it looks from the outside at the abstract presentation of the experience of mankind. It goes beyond dramatic text and the dependence on character driven action. Objects or bodies on stage that are not normally associated superficially, are connected, the connection making the elements of the bodies' or objects' meaning clearer, creating signs of signs, manipulating time and space. It modifies the audiences view because it alters the way in which physical and psychological reality is assembled. It goes beyond what is seen, and unlike dramatic theatre does not construct it's reality through "class, race and gender" but looks past these constructions to the way it influence the body. (Chapple & Kattenbelt 2006:19, 21, 22)

1.9.2) As Lehmann puts it Postdramatic theatre, "is a theatre of states" and appeals to the senses more than it is about the plot of dramatic theatre (Lehman 2006:68). In this lies an example of how Theatrical traditions are directly challenged by the 'non-hierarchal structure' of postdramatic theatre (Lehman 2006:86). The 'theatrical signs' found in Post dramatic theatre is in everything that is presented on stage without being 'conceptually bound' or stuck in a specific identity the audience member makes meaning of it, influenced by own perceptions and context, because that influences how signs are read (Lehman 2006 :82). It gets rid of Brecht's political, rational style and 'dogmatization' but is at the same time aware of what is being shown and the implications it might have for the future (Lehman 2006:33).

1.9.3) Post dramatic theatre is no longer about telling a story with a beginning middle and end, but rather about conveying more abstract thoughts and emotions using the entire body and other tools that go beyond the conventions of dramatic theatre, like intermediality. It is not bound by language but rather tied together by a certain concept or ideas, each audience member interpreting the signs from their own perspective. It challenges the structures and ideas around what theatre is, disrupting the norm moving beyond character binaries, because what is shown is constructed in a new way. Showing the physical effect ideas have on the body in a way that still alienates, for the spectator to think about what they saw and how it affects them, rather than feel empathy for characters.

1.9.4) Dr. Taub's adaption of "Die Boek"(2012) is a good example of post-dramatic theatre because it used the theatre space in a different way with the audience moving around in the space, with the actors, with constant projections on different screens, one being someone typing a script editing as the show continues. The Action is also not drive by the protagonist, the messenger, but by Lea, a character that is described by the director as the plot. The characters movements go beyond the norm their bodies hidden in layers and layers of clothing with makeup or masks distorting their faces and identity moving away from binaries of gender, age and class. The text also moves away from convention Lea's first words being the stage directions of the original play. Lea travels to another world and in the end stands on stage as a professor, quoting Derrida and then putting a clown nose on dancing away from the audience connecting a professor, a clown nose and dancing, with a whole play about ghosts connecting objects that wouldn't normally be connected to create new meaning.

1.10. Carnivalesque

10.1) Since the "ancient" times, right through the "medieval" ages, the "Renaissance" period, and up until the present day, events of carnivalesque can be found in writers' texts of their day and age (Abrams 2005: 63). Thompson (2007: 114), citing Bahtkin's work, indicates further that carnivalesque takes its form as linguistically and bodily enactments of certain "social practices" based on a text, which speaks to higher art forms. Such enactments take popularly the form "carnivals [with] exuberantly conjoined eating, drinking, copulating, and shitting in a pagan cosmology that celebrated the fertility of the Earth and the maternal body, the procreative power of sex, the fecund nature of excrement, and the corporeal fate of returning to the Earth as organic matter" (Thompson 2007; 114). The carnivalesque may aim to undermine "ideological imperatives" and "conformist mandates" through using a language that speaks to higher art in a form of "transgressive resistance and grotesque realism" (Tompson 2007: 115). One may agree with Abrams (2005: 63) that carnivalesque festivals seek to invert "temporarily… [the] social hierarchies" such as higher art. This language enacted in these festivals, include the "voices of diverse social levels that are free to mock and subvert authority, to flout social norms" (Abrams 2005: 63). One may say that through the explicit celebration of the forbidden, the carnivalesque empowers all classes as equals as it can comments and critique on its society.

Celebrating carnivalesque acts as a subverting transport of the individuals out of subjectivity 'tied' to society's imposing ideologies, and focuses on creating a "transpersonal and ecological interconnection" of people that liberates the body to inscribe itself with "bodily lower stratum" subversive identity (Tompson 2005: 114-115). This carnivalesque liberation may be seen as rebellious and unacceptable and even illegal in society, such as "cybercommunities… sharing pirated music" according to Tompson 2007: 116), but yet interesting enough, placed in the context of a festival "season of carnival, carnivalesque is redeemed (Abrams 2005: 63).

1.10.3)The carnivalesque as described by Bakhtin is a form critiquing and conveying a message through performance where the ambience of carnival is promoted. This performance is done through poking fun of the prominent authorities in society and culture. Laughing at the normative ways institutionalised by these authorities, their power and influences are nullified making it possible for them to be critiqued.

1.10.4) The production of 'As Night Falls' (2011) tells a story of a forbidden love between a white woman (Miss Helen Elizabeth Martins) and a black man the two protagonists characters. This Miss Helen was seen as an "outlandish" caracter, indicated by About.Com (2012: [sp]), and along with the taboo of her inter-racial love would have subverted the norms and values of its historical context of its time through out the 19 hundreds. This production could be seen as not only a tribute to the eccentric impact Miss Helen had through her art and lifestyle but also a celebration of creativity and meaning challenging the stifling dominant hierarchies of art, and social and cultural constructs. Much like the carnivalesque 'As Night Falls' speaks the aspects of life, which such social and cultural constructs deem as taboos. With in the inter-racial relationship, the production strives to lift up the social stature of the black character with the audience's interpretation, portraying him as the protagonist and the township of Bathesda as the antagonist. One may say that, as in the carnavalesque, it attempts to level all class differences. The right of the black character has the same equal right to love Miss Helen as any other class or race. The message that this potrays as well, has the same inportance as any other message in theatre art.The stylized movement, in particularly the scene where Miss Helen is mocked by the township, creates a very carnival ambience through the music, masks and choreography of the productions. Carnival is one of the key elements in which the carnivalesque functions. With in that scene where the township laugh and ridicule Miss Helen (and by implication her lifestyle and art and love life) would place the township people, and the dominant social and cultural position they comment from, in a negative light. In fact it would be the ridiculousness of the township's reaction to Miss Helen that is critiqued. Thus just like carnivalesque, these carnivalesque elements in "As Night Falls' subverts the hierarchy and gives social and political comment on the historic event.

1.11. Heteroglossia

11.1) (Vice 1998:122) states that Bakhtin's major term for explaining the multifaceted "stratification" of language into genre is the separating and differentiating of speech. According to (Vice 1998:125) Bakhtin utilizes the term heteroglossia to indicate the range of languages which suggests itself entering both in literary texts as well as everyday life. (Vice 1998:125) states that the novel being pierced into and entered by the concept of heteroglossia, becomes "subject to the artist's" deviation.

According to (Morson & Emerson 1990:139) Bakhtin affirms that language is by no means a "unitary system" of standards, Bakhtin sited in (Morson & Emerson 1990:139) further states that in language structure is no way ever finished and that it continuously calls for work as it is an ongoing task that is contrasted to the fundamental complexity and disorderliness of the world.

Bakhtin, cited in, (Robinson 2002) disapproves of individuals who observe and examine language is a closed of system, such views according to Bakhtin, sited in (Robinson 2002) are on a social scale He (Bakhtin) sees such views as meeting the terms surrounding the conception in the creation of a cohesive language as the agent of "centralised power".

(Robinson 2002) states that in most cases the "standard" language and speech is borrowed from the upper class as they are on the top of the pecking order in social standards. An increase in a specific "hegemonic language" over powers the heteroglossia of the every man's speech type and use of language in modern society.

(Robinson 2002) affirms that common everyday Everyday discourse and speech pattern is forced to mould itself and become a pattern of convention to the broader accepted and in the formal and authorized in order to be categorized as part of the elite speech community of hegemonic concepts.

Bakhtin's view according to (Robinson 2002) challenges and disagrees with the idea that language is primarily a vehicle of communication and to communicate information, Bakhtin according to (Robinson 2002) believes that discourse can in no means associate itself directly to the outside world, it is in instead a "social field" of interrelated methods of observing that referees the relations between each individual speaker of everyday life in the world.

Bakhtin affirms that the notion of language being only a descriptive one turns the idea of any form of discourse in to a stagnant dead concept, as sited in (Robinson 2002) he furthermore states that any language-use is moulded by a social manner of observation and that these social ways of observation and sight are always challenged and ever changing.

For Bakhtin, sited in (Robinson 2002) heteroglossia is the effect of lasting "linguistic and aesthetic" adjustments, he connects a huge amount of social control to literature proposing that world beliefs are are transformed and moulded in result of certain changes among categories of literature.

11.2) Heteroglossia operates on two different levels on the one hand the meaning of language is interpreted according to its context and on the other is informed by it. This gives the situation authority over text meaning that text can not simply be oversimplified when analyzed. All words are 'heteroglot' in the sense that they fit into a specific milieu, one with ideologies, and classifications, that give fixed meanings, that it would not have under any other condition or point in time. It is more than just neutral symbols but a negotiation of social ideas that in some cases contradict one another (Bakhtin 1981:423) .

Dialogism is a characteristic of a heteroglossia, where text is seen as part of a bigger whole with meanings influencing meaning (Bakhtin 1981:426). Change in the construction of the heteroglossia over time as society changes the words meaning and how it is framed is redefined, this can make an older text relevant to a modern society because of a different understanding. But this can be problematic if a text is redefined without keeping the original context in mind placing it against a background that alienates it from its original meaning completely (Bakhtin1981: 420). Without knowledge of heteroglossia, the context of 'dialog and language' in a specific era, a text can not be successfully analyzed (Bakhtin 1981:418). It has its own 'cultural', 'sociopolitical', 'mythological 'and 'religious' systems informing and interpreting language (Bakhtin 1981:368). This is often portrayed by the character body in a specific point of view (Bakhtin 1981:342).

11.3) Heteroglosia is a notion by Bakhtin that doesn't see language as standing alone to create meaning, but puts it within a specific context. This is the case for both written and spoken text that is informed and interpreted according to the context it is spoken in. It happens within a certain conversation, place or novel that put the word within a certain matrix giving it meaning. The 'hegemonic language', the language that is changing in and with society without it being openly forced influences the language of the man on the street as well as the language in literature and theatre. For example even when looking at plays from the 90's like Braam van der Vyver's Eskorts the Afrikaans the girls at the Escort agency speak, that is supposed to be slang, sounds more formal than some of the Afrikaans we use in daily life. This is because our society today is greatly influenced by American pop culture through television, a hegemonic force, that has influenced how we speak today. This also influences how we read older texts because we interpret it from a different perspective it may be relevant to us today but can be misinterpreted or not understood. An example of this is contemporary reading of Shakespeare's comedy, The Taming of the Shrew that without the proper background knowledge, the way Kate is treated by her husband is not funny or understood. This makes heteroglossia very dangerous because the spoken word is part of a whole. (Robinson 2002) (Bakhtin 1981:342, 368; 418; 420;)

11.4) An example of heteroglossia for example is the phrase 'The Spear', in the South African context at this moment it is immediately connected to a controversial painting made of the South African president by Andrew Murray, that received a lot of attention from the media, "The Spear" (2012), where in a older context it would have been associated with a weapon and war without the president spontaneously coming to mind.

Sources Consulted

About.Com. 2012. 'Miss Helen', South Africa's Foremost Outsider Artist. [0]. Available: Accessed: September 8th 2012

Anderson, B. 2006. Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism. Verso: London.

Bakhtin, M. M. 1981. The dialogic Imagination: Four Essays by M. M. Bakthin. Texas: University of Texas Press

Baumeister, R, F. [sa]. Self-concept,self-esteem, and identity. [O]. Available:,-Self-Esteem-and-Identity.pdf

Accessed 27 August 2012.

Bottomley, G. 1992. From Another Place: Migration and the Politics of Culture. New York: Cambridge University press.

Buchholtz, M & Hall, K. 2005. Identity and interaction: A Sociocultural Linguistic Approach. Discourse studies. 7(405): 585-614.

Bullock, A & Trombley, S. (eds). 2000. The New Fontana dictionary of modern thought. Third edition. London: HarperCollins.

Chandler, D. 2002. Semiotics for beginners. [O]. Available:

Accessed: 26 August 2012

Chapple, F. Kattenbelt, C. 2006. Themes in theatre two: collective approaches to theatre and performance. Intermediality in theatre and performance. Amsterdam: Rodopi

Fearon, J. 1999. WHAT IS IDENTITY (AS WE NOW USE THE WORD)?. California: Stanford University.

Gilbert, H. & Lo, J. 2002. Towards Topography of Cross-Cultural Theatre Praxis. The Drama Review 46,3 (T175), Fall 2002. New York : New York University.

Hall, D, E. 2004. The new critical idiom. Routledge: New York.

Keefe, J & Murray, S. 2007. Physical Theatre: A critical reader. New York: Routledge.

Lawler, S. 2008. Sociological perspectives. New York: Polity Press.

Lehman, T. H. 2006. Postdramatic Theatre. New York: Routledge

Lo, J & Gilbert, H. 2002. Towards a Topography of Cross-Cultural Theatre Praxis. The Drama Review (46) 3. Fall 2002

Nealon, J. T. & Giroux, S. S. 2003. The Theory Toolbox: Critical Concepts For The Humanities, Arts, And Social Sciences. Rowman & littlefield publishers: Oxford

Nolard, C. 2009. Agency and Embodiment: Performing getures/producing cultures. Routledge: New York.

Machlaclan, M. 2004. Embodiment,Clinical perspesctives on health and illness. New York: Open University Press.

Mandik, P. 1998. Subjectivity & Objectivity. [O]. Availble:

Accessed: 26 August 2012

Mansfield, N. 2000. Subjejectivity theories of the self from Freud to Haraway. New York: New York University Press.

Morson, G & Emerson, C. 1990. Michail Bakhtin: Creation of Prosaics. Chicago: Stanford University Press.

Nolard, C. 2009. Agency and Embodiment: Performing getures/producing cultures. Routledge: New York.

Pavis, P. (ed). 1998. Dictionary Of The Theatre, Terms,Concepts and Analysis. Torronto:University of Torronto Press Incorporated.

Pavis, P. (ed). 1996.The intercultural performance reader. New York: Routledge.

Pluth, E. 2007. Signifiers and Acts: Freedom in Lacan's Theory of the Subject. Albany: New York University Press.

Robinson, A. 2002. Andrew Robinson In Theory Bakhtin: Dialogism,Plyphony and Heteroglossia. [O]. Available:

Accessed 5 September 2012.

Vice, S. 1998. Introducing Bakhtin. Manchester: Manchester University Press.

Spackman, H. 2000. Minding the matter of representation: staging the body (politics). Contemporary theatre review. 2000. (10) 3. pp 5-22

Taub, M.(dir) 2012. Die Boek. [play]. University of Pretoria: Drama department.

Turner, T. 1995. Social Body and Embodied Subject: Bodiliness, Subjectivity, and Sociality among the Kayapo. Cultural Anthropology 10(2): 143-170

Vierkant, P. 2005. Imagine communities- what makes readership share certain idea of newspapers. Druck und Bindung: Norderstedt.

Waskul,D & Van der Riet , P. 2002. The abject embodiment of cancer patients: dignity,selfhood and the grotesque body. Madenhead: Open University Press.

Weedon, C. 2004. Identity and Culture: Narratives of Difference and Belonging. Madenhead: Open University Press.

Williams R. 1983. Keywords: a vocabulary of culture and society. London: Fontana Press.