Performativitätstheorien

Performativity theories

The concept of “performativity” has been prominent in cultural studies since the 1990s. Its spectrum of meaning is based on the tension between the connotations of the verb “to perform” in English, as meaning both executing and presenting (on stage). Notwithstanding the clear association with performance in the artistic sense, the term as currently used is best explained through its history in the linguistic theory, where Chomsky introduced the distinction between “competence” and “performance". The former denotes knowledge of a particular language, the latter how an individual actually speaks and what he/she says, i.e. the manner in which the “knowledge system” of the language is realized by speakers. In his book How to do things with words, John L. Austin adds a further important level to this reflection on language and speech. Not only does “language”, which describes the world, exist solely in the performance of speakers, but certain forms of linguistic utterances change situations in the social world. Austin’s theory of “speech acts” has been further extended in various ways in philosophy and cultural studies. Jacques Derrida added an important level by pointing out that performative speech acts function only because they quote a convention, i.e. they are repetitions. Judith Butler has given performativity an important role in gender studies (in an extension of the theory also drawing on other domains). Hence, the shout “It’s a girl” following the birth of a child is a performative utterance. The subjects carrying out performative acts are thus themselves the result of performative utterances. But as well as being based performatively on this act, gender identity is (compulsorily) continually re-performed through the repetition of practices that are historically established as “being a man” or “being a woman”. However, repetition is also the location of the subject’s action space and the possibility of subversion – the subject may not repeat the act precisely, or may make an error in performance, thereby producing changes. Through this further extension, the concept of performativity is released from the confines of the speech act, and becomes linked to the semantic field of a (stage) performance, associated with “theatricality”. Performativity therefore describes the production of reality through the (re)performance of historically developed action possibilities.
(Nora Landkammer)

“Performativity theories have a special relevance with regard to education processes, since education processes are embedded in social structures and ritual arrangements, giving rise to a corrective adjustment to the widespread reduction of collective education (including cultural education) to individual education. Recent years have seen increased research interest within the social sciences and education studies in investigating ‘performative representations of society in games’, or ‘the performative formation of communities in rituals’, and the use of qualitative methods to reveal mimetic processes of the constitution of the social. It would be interesting to see this approach applied to research into educational processes of artistic work with children and young people in institutional contexts. This is based on the assumption that, under a context-related perspective, working with artistic strategies with cultural education can also be described as a process focused on the construction and rehearsal of gestures and actions that both differ and in diverse ways refer to the body language, gestures and actions of children and young people prevalent in the specific environment (e.g. school). Cultural education could therefore also be seen in general terms as the temporary establishment of ‘artistic rituals’.”

Literature