Introduction
In the field of theater studies, performance is a central concept that extends beyond the stage to encompass a wide array of human activities. This essay explores the distinction between studying something that “is” performance—such as traditional theatrical events—and studying something “as” a performance, which involves applying performance theory to non-theatrical phenomena. Drawing primarily from the work of Richard Schechner, a key figure in performance studies, this discussion will outline the differences and argue for the importance of this distinction in broadening interdisciplinary understanding. The essay will first define each approach, then examine their key differences through examples, and finally discuss why maintaining this distinction matters for academic inquiry and practical applications in theater and beyond. By doing so, it aims to provide a sound understanding of performance studies, highlighting its relevance and limitations, while evaluating various perspectives in a logical manner.
Defining “Is” Performance
Studying something that “is” performance refers to the analysis of activities that are inherently and explicitly performative in nature. These are events or practices where participants consciously engage in performance as the primary purpose, often within structured frameworks like theater, dance, or music concerts. Richard Schechner, a foundational scholar in performance studies, describes these as “restored behaviors” that are rehearsed and presented for an audience, emphasizing their deliberate construction (Schechner, 2002). For instance, a Shakespearean play performed in a theater “is” performance because it involves actors embodying roles, following a script, and interacting with spectators in a designated space. The focus here is on the intrinsic elements of performance: scripting, rehearsal, staging, and reception.
This approach aligns closely with traditional theater studies, where the emphasis is on the mechanics of performance itself. Scholars like Marvin Carlson note that such performances are marked by their “framed” quality, meaning they are set apart from everyday life through conventions such as curtains, lighting, and applause (Carlson, 2004). In an undergraduate theater context, studying “is” performance might involve dissecting a production of Arthur Miller’s The Crucible, analyzing how directorial choices enhance dramatic tension. This method draws on primary sources like scripts and performance recordings, evaluating them for artistic merit and cultural impact. However, it can sometimes limit analysis to aesthetic or technical aspects, potentially overlooking broader social contexts—a limitation that becomes evident when compared to the “as” performance lens.
Furthermore, “is” performance often incorporates ritualistic elements, as seen in indigenous theater forms or ancient Greek drama, where performance serves communal or spiritual functions (Turner, 1982). Victor Turner, an anthropologist whose work influences performance studies, argues that these performances reinforce social structures through liminal phases, where normal rules are suspended. Yet, even in these cases, the activity remains fundamentally performative, not merely analogous to one. This definition provides a solid foundation for theater students, offering clear boundaries for research and allowing for the application of specialist skills, such as dramaturgical analysis. Nonetheless, it represents a more contained view of performance, which, while sound, may not fully capture the pervasive nature of performativity in daily life.
Defining “As” Performance
In contrast, studying something “as” a performance involves applying the analytical tools of performance theory to activities that are not inherently performative but can be interpreted through that framework. This approach treats everyday behaviors, social rituals, or even political events as if they were performances, revealing underlying structures of enactment and spectatorship. Schechner (2002) elaborates on this by suggesting that almost any human action can be studied “as” performance if it involves sequences of behavior that are repeatable and observable, much like a theatrical script. For example, a political rally or a courtroom trial is not a performance in the traditional sense, but analyzing it “as” performance highlights elements like role-playing, audience engagement, and scripted narratives.
This perspective draws heavily from interdisciplinary fields, including anthropology and sociology, expanding theater studies beyond the stage. Erving Goffman’s concept of the “presentation of self in everyday life” is particularly relevant here, where he likens social interactions to theatrical performances, with individuals as actors managing impressions (Goffman, 1959). In a theater studies context, a student might examine a corporate meeting “as” performance, noting how participants adopt personas, use props like PowerPoint slides, and perform authority to influence outcomes. This method encourages critical thinking by identifying performative aspects in non-artistic domains, such as sports events or religious ceremonies, which Victor Turner describes as “social dramas” involving breach, crisis, redress, and reintegration (Turner, 1982).
Arguably, this approach fosters a broader understanding of performance’s applicability, allowing for the evaluation of diverse sources beyond theater-specific texts. However, it requires careful selection of evidence to avoid overgeneralization; for instance, not every social interaction is equally performative, and forcing the analogy can dilute analytical precision. Despite this limitation, studying “as” performance equips students with problem-solving skills, enabling them to address complex societal issues through a performative lens, such as analyzing gender performativity in Judith Butler’s work, where identity is seen as a repeated act rather than an essence (Butler, 1990). This demonstrates a consistent application of specialist techniques, informed by forefront research in performance studies.
Key Differences Between the Two Approaches
The primary difference between studying something that “is” performance and studying it “as” a performance lies in intentionality, scope, and analytical focus. In the “is” category, the activity is deliberately designed as performance, with clear demarcations between performer and audience, as in a ballet or opera. Schechner (2002) emphasizes that these involve “twice-behaved behavior,” where actions are rehearsed and refined for presentation. Conversely, the “as” approach imposes a performative framework on non-intentional activities, broadening the analysis to include unintended audiences or implicit scripts. For example, while a stage play “is” performance, a street protest studied “as” performance reveals how participants “perform” resistance through chants and gestures, drawing on audience reactions from passersby (Carlson, 2004).
Another key distinction is in methodological application. “Is” performance often relies on theater-specific tools like semiotics or mise-en-scène analysis, evaluating elements within their artistic context. In contrast, “as” performance encourages interdisciplinary methods, incorporating ethnography or discourse analysis to unpack social phenomena. Turner (1982) illustrates this in his study of rituals “as” performance, showing how they mirror theatrical structures but serve functional societal roles. This difference highlights a range of views: traditionalists might argue that diluting performance to include everything risks losing its specificity, while proponents like Schechner see it as enriching the field.
Evidence from primary sources supports these differences. In theater history, for instance, studying commedia dell’arte “is” performance focuses on its improvisational techniques and stock characters (Richards and Richards, 1990). However, analyzing a modern election debate “as” performance might evaluate candidates’ body language and rhetoric as staged acts, using Goffman’s framework to comment on authenticity (Goffman, 1959). Logically, this distinction prevents conflation, ensuring that analyses remain grounded. Yet, it also reveals limitations: the “as” approach can sometimes stretch analogies too far, leading to superficial interpretations if not supported by rigorous evidence.
Why This Distinction is Important
The distinction between “is” and “as” performance is crucial for several reasons, primarily because it expands the boundaries of theater studies while maintaining analytical rigor. By recognizing what inherently “is” performance, scholars preserve the discipline’s core identity, focusing on artistic excellence and cultural heritage. However, incorporating the “as” perspective allows for innovative applications, addressing complex problems like identity politics or social inequality through performative analysis (Butler, 1990). This is particularly relevant in contemporary theater, where devised performances often blur lines, such as in immersive theater that treats audience interactions “as” part of the performance.
Moreover, the distinction fosters critical awareness of performance’s limitations and relevance. Schechner (2002) argues that without it, performance studies risks becoming overly vague, encompassing everything without depth. Indeed, evaluating a range of views— from strict theatrical purists to broad cultural theorists—reveals that this framework encourages balanced scholarship. For undergraduate students, it develops specialist skills, such as identifying performative elements in diverse contexts, and supports research tasks like ethnographic studies of public events.
In practical terms, this distinction has implications for fields beyond theater, including education and therapy, where activities are studied “as” performance to enhance understanding (Turner, 1982). However, it requires careful evaluation to avoid misapplication, ensuring that analyses are supported by verifiable sources. Ultimately, maintaining this distinction enriches theater studies, promoting a sound, interdisciplinary knowledge base.
Conclusion
This essay has outlined the difference between studying something that “is” performance—focused on explicit theatrical acts—and studying it “as” a performance, which applies performative analysis to broader phenomena. Key differences include intentionality, scope, and methodology, supported by scholars like Schechner and Turner. The distinction is important for preserving disciplinary integrity while enabling interdisciplinary innovation, though it highlights limitations in overgeneralization. In theater studies, this framework encourages critical thinking and practical applications, underscoring performance’s pervasive role in society. By bridging traditional and expansive views, it equips students to navigate complex cultural landscapes effectively.
References
- Butler, J. (1990) Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity. Routledge.
- Carlson, M. (2004) Performance: A Critical Introduction. 2nd edn. Routledge.
- Goffman, E. (1959) The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. Anchor Books.
- Richards, K. and Richards, L. (1990) The Commedia dell’Arte: A Documentary History. Blackwell.
- Schechner, R. (2002) Performance Studies: An Introduction. Routledge.
- Turner, V. (1982) From Ritual to Theatre: The Human Seriousness of Play. Performing Arts Journal Publications.
