The Call to Performance

Norman K. Denzin
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

This article presents a performance-based approach to doing symbolic interactionist inquiry. After a discussion of the vocabulary of performance, I examine the relationship among performance, pedagogy, aesthetics, and politics, including the move to performance ( auto) ethnography.

Educated hope . . . registers politics as a pedagogical and performative act. Henry Giroux, Public Spaces, Private Lives This essay, in the form of a manifesto, invites symbolic interactionists to think through the practical, progressive politics of a performative cultural studies;1 an emancipatory discourse connecting critical pedagogy with new ways of writing and performing culture (Kincheloe and McLaren 2000:285).2 I believe performancebased human disciplines can contribute to radical social change, to economic justice, to a cultural politics that extends critical race theory and the principles of a radical democracy to all aspects of society (Giroux 2000a:x, 25) and to change that envisions a democracy founded in a social justice that is not yet (Weems 2002:3). I believe that symbolic interactionists should be part of this project (see Denzin 1992, 1995, 1997, 2001a, 2001b, 2001c).3 Shaped by the sociological imagination (Mills 1959), building on Perinbanayagam (1991:113, 171) and George Herbert Meads discursive, performative model of the act (1938:460; see also Dunn 1998), this way of doing symbolic interactionism attempts to show how terms such as biography, history, gender, race, ethnicity, family, and history have always been performative and interactive. Building on Perinbanayagam and Mead, this framework imagines and explores multiple ways in which we can understand performance, including as imitation, or mimesis; as poiesis, or construction; as kinesis, motion, or movement (Conquergood 1998:31). The interactionist moves from a view of performance as imitation, or dramaturgical staging (Goffman 1959), to an emphasis on performance as liminality and construction (Turner 1986), to a view of performance as struggle, as an inter-

Direct all correspondence to Norman K. Denzin, Institute of Communications Research, University of IllinoisUrbana, 228 Gregory Hall, 810 South Wright St., Urbana, IL 61801; e-mail: n-denzin@uiuc.edu. Symbolic Interaction, Volume 26, Number 1, pages 187207, ISSN 0195-6086; online ISSN 1533-8665. 2003 by the Society for the Study of Symbolic Interaction. All rights reserved. Send requests for permission to reprint to: Rights and Permissions, University of California Press, Journals Division, 2000 Center St., Ste. 303, Berkeley, CA 94704-1223.

188

Symbolic Interaction

Volume 26, Number 1, 2003

vention, as breaking and remaking, as kinesis, as a sociopolitical act (Conquergood 1998:32). Viewed as struggle, and intervention, performance and performance events become transgressive achievements, political accomplishments that break through sedimented meanings and normative traditions (Conquergood 1998:32). My argument unfolds in four parts. I begin by de ning terms and the call to performance. I then examine the relationship among performance, pedagogy, and politics, including the move to performance in ethnography. Next, I outline performative criteria and performance art in the seventh moment.4 I conclude with a discussion of performance aesthetics and performative cultural politics. In the spirit of Mead and Dewey I intend to create a dialogue within the interactionist community, and thus move our discourse more fully into the spaces of a progressive interactionism. I want to extend those political impulses within the interactionist tradition that imagine a radical, democratic philosophy (Lyman and Vidich 1988:xi). Following Dewey, Mills, Blumer, and Du Bois, these impulses constantly interrogate the relevance of pragmatism and symbolic interactionism for race relations and inequality in the capitalist democractic state (Reynolds 2000:12).

THE CALL TO PERFORMANCE

Many interactionists are in the seventh moment, performing culture as they write it, understanding that the dividing line between performativity (doing) and performance (done) has disappeared (Conquergood 1998:25). But even as this disappearance occurs, matters of racial injustice remain. On this, W. E. B. Du Bois ([1901] 1978:281, 288) reminds us that the problem of the twenty- rst century will be the problem of the color line. . . . [M]odern democracy cannot succeed unless peoples of different races and religions are also integrated into the democractic whole. Du Bois addressed race from a performance standpoint. He understood that from the arrival of the rst African slaves on American soil . . . the de nitions and meanings of blackness have been intricately linked to issues of theatre and performance (Elam 2001:4).5 In his manifesto for an all-black theater, Du Bois (1926) imagined a site for pedagogical performances that articulate positive black social and cultural agency (Elam 2001:6). His radical theater (1926:134), like that of Amiri Barakas (1979), Anna Deavere Smiths (1993, 2000) and August Wilsons (1996), is a political theater about blacks, written by blacks and for blacks, and performed by blacks in local theaters. Radical theater wields a weapon to ght racism and white privilege. bell hooks elaborates the need for a black political performance aesthetic. As a child, she and her sisters learned about race in America by watching the Ed Sullivan show on Sunday nights.
Seeing on that show the great Louis Armstrong, Daddy who was usually silent, would talk about the music, the way Armstrong was being treated, and the political implications of his appearance. . . . [R]esponding to televised cultural production, black people could express rage about racism. . . . [U]nfortunately . . . black

The Call to Performance

189

folks were not engaged in writing a body of critical cultural analysis. (hooks 1990:34)

I fold my project into Du Boiss and bell hookss, by asking how a radical performative social science can confront and transcend the problems surrounding the color line in the twenty- rst century. Such a project will write and perform culture in new ways. It will connect re exive autoethnography with critical pedagogy and critical race theory (see Ladson-Billings 2000). It will necessarily treat political acts as pedagogical and performative, as acts that open new spaces for social citizenship and democratic dialogueacts that create critical race consciousness (Giroux 2001a:9). A performative, pedagogical politics of hope imagines a radically free democratic society, a society where ideals of the feminist, queer, environmental, green, civil rights, and labor movements are realized (Giroux 2001a:9; McChesney 1999:290).6 In their utopian forms, these movements offer alternative models of radical democratic culture rooted in social relations that take seriously the democratic ideals of freedom, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (Giroux 2001a:9). Excerpts from Mary Weemss poem This evolution will not be televised (2002) clarify my project. Weems, like hooks, shows how the media and white culture shape African American experience:
This evolution will not be televised Our image, our braids, our music, our mistakes, our asses, our rhythms are played on TV like a long 78 album in commercial after commercial The Colonel in plantation-dress raps and moonwalks selling a black womans stolen fried chicken, black kids snap their ngers, think thats so cool, bug their mamas for extra-crispy This is a never-ending story, that wont be televised. . . (Weems 2002:4)

Performance and Performativity

The following terms should be examined in greater detail: performance, performance text, performer, performing, performativity, originals, and imitations. An interpretive event, a performance involves actors, purposes, scripts, stories, stages, and interactions (Burke 1969). The act of performing intervenes between experience and the story told (Langellier 1999:128). A performance text can take several forms: dramatic texts, such as a poem or play; natural texts, or transcriptions of everyday conversations; ethnodramas (Mienczakowski 2001); dramatic, staged, and improvised readings. Performances are embedded in language. That is, certain words do accomplish things, and what they do, performatively, refers back to meanings embedded in language and culture (Austin 1962;7 Butler 1993a, 1993b, 1997; Derrida 1973, 1988).

190

Symbolic Interaction

Volume 26, Number 1, 2003

For Butler, performativity refers to the reiterative power of discourse to reproduce the phenomenona that it regulates and constrains (1993a:2). Hence, in performative utterances the speaking subject is already spoken for, by, and in language (Pollock 1998b:39). Schechner contends that we inhabit a world where cultures, texts, and performances collide. Such collisions require a distinction between as and is (Schechner 1998:361). As uid ongoing events, performances mark and bend identities, remake time and adorn and reshape the body, tell stories and allow people to play with behavior that is restored, or twice-behaved (Schechner 1998:361). The way a performance is enacted describes performative behavior, how people play gender, heightening their constructed identity, performing slightly or radically different selves in different situations (Schechner 1998:361).8 This view of the performative makes it increasingly dif cult to sustain any distinction between appearances and facts, surfaces and depths, illusions and substances. Appearances are actualities (Schechner 1998:362). Performance and performativity intersect in a speaking subject with a gendered and racialized body. Performativity situates performance narrative within the forces of discourse (Langellier 1999:129), for example, the discourses of race and gender. In transgressive performances, performing bodies contest gendered identities, creating spaces for a queer politics of resistance (Butler 1993a:12; Pollock 1998b:42; see also Garoian 1999:5). Butler reminds us that there are no original performances, no preexisting identity by which an act or attribute might be measured (1993a:141). Every performance is an imitation, a form of mimesis: if heterosexuality is an impossible imitation of itself, an imitation that performatively constitutes itself as the original, then the imitative parody of heterosexuality . . . is always and only an imitation, a copy of a copy, for which there is no original (1993b:644). Every performance is an original and an imitation. Clearly performativity and performance exist in a tension with one another, in a tension between doing, or performing, and the done, the text, the performance. Performance is sensuous, and contingent. Performativity becomes the everyday practice of doing whats done (Pollock 1998b:43; emphasis in original). Performativity is what happens when history/textuality sees itself in the mirrorand suddenly sees double; it is the disorienting, [the] disruptive (Pollock 1998b:43). Performativity derives its power and prerogative in the breaking and remaking of the very textual frameworks that give it meaning in the rst place (Pollock 1998b:44). Read out loud the following lines from Stephen Hartnetts investigative poem, Visiting Mario. Performing and performativity interact in these lines.
Somewhere Near Salinas, Lord ten-thousand sprinklers spin slowly in overlapping circles . . . drinking water from plastic jugs hats propped on knees leathery hands scarred from lifetimes Kristofferson/Joplin

The Call to Performance

191

of harvesting glory of California for ve dollars a day . . . choking the old Mexican woman sobs her boy is cuffed and taken back to hell the Vietnamese couple whispers to their son who looks over their hunched shoulders . . . (2002:2, 7)

TOWARD A PERFORMATIVE CULTURAL POLITICS 9

With terms in place, the call to performance within the interactionist community concerns ve questions, each of which pairs performance with another term (Conquergood 1991:190, 1998; Schechner 1998:360). Each pair is predicated on the proposition that if the world is a performance, not a text, then today we need a model of social science which is performative. This means it is necessary to rethink the relationship between

performance and cultural process; performance and ethnographic praxis; performance and hermeneutics; performance and the act of scholarly representation; performance and the politics of culture (Conquergood 1991:190).

All interactionists concur with the rst pair: culture is a verb, a process, an ongoing performance, not a noun or a product or a static thing. Performances and their representations reside in the center of lived experience. We cannot study experience directly. We study it through and in its performative representations. So conceived, culture turns performance into a site where memory, emotion, fantasy, and desire fuel one another (Madison 1998:277). The second cluster brings performance and ethnographic praxis into play, highlighting the methodological implications of thinking about eldwork as a collaborative process, or coperformance (Conquergood 1991:190). Autoethnographers insert their experiences into the cultural performances being studied. Stacey Holman Jones (2002:45) writes of herself and her love of unrequited love. Speaking of love, she nds herself crying as she watches the nal scene in The Way We Were:
I am crying. I cry each time I see the nal scene between Katie and Hubbell in The Way We Were. I have to see only that last scene, hear only those last sounds, Memories . . . I cry for Katie and Hubbell, for the way they tried, but just couldnt make their relationship work.

Consider now this poem by Jones. It speaks of her relationship to torch singers like Billie Holiday. Jones begins her poem by rst referencing Peggy Phelan

192

Symbolic Interaction

Volume 26, Number 1, 2003

(1993:16), who states: All seeing is hooded by loss. . . . [I]n looking at the other . . . the subject seeks to see herself. Jones writes:
I feel the slipping away, welcome it. Turn over the memory of a long, lost other . . . Your eyes, green like mine, on me, Steadily watching myself re ected in your gaze. Look at you seeing me. . . I want to live the torch song I think, write, dream about. (2002:49)

The third pair connects performances to hermeneutics, and privileges performed experience as a way of knowing, as a method of critical inquiry, and as a mode of understanding. Reading Joness poem out loud allows me to hear her voice, and through my voice connect with Holiday, through Peggy Phelan. In these sounds and feelings I feel closer to her desire to live the torch song. Similarly, reading the lines from Hartnetts poem takes me back to Janis Joplin, to Me and Bobbie McGee, to Kris Kristofferson, and to Mexican laborers in the Salinas Valley, tangled up memories, California prisons, violence, injustice, and the Vietnam War. Hermeneutics is the work of interpretation and understanding. Knowing refers to those embodied, sensuous experiences that create the conditions for understanding (Denzin 1984:282). Through performance I experience Joness feelings that are present in her performance text. Thus performed experiences are sites where felt emotion, memory, desire, and understanding come together. The fourth and fth pair of questions speak to the unbreakable link between hermeneutics, politics, pedagogy, ethics, and scholarly representation. Conquergood (1991:190) remains rm on this point. We should treat performances as a complementary form of research publication, an alternative method or way of interpreting and presenting the results of ones ethnographic work. Performances deconstruct, or at least challenge the scholarly article as the preferred form of presentation (and representation). A performance authorizes itself, not through the citation of scholarly texts, but through its ability to evoke and invoke shared emotional experience and understanding between performer and audience. Performances become a critical site of power, and politics in the fth pair. A radical pedagogy underlies this notion of performative cultural politics. Foucault reminds us that power always elicits resistance. The performative becomes an act of doing, an act of resistance, a way of connecting the biographical, the pedagogical, and the political (Giroux 2000a:13435). The concepts of militant utopianism and educated hope are realized in the moment of resistance (Giroux 2001b:109) This utopianism and vision of hope moves from private to public, from biographical to institutional, and views personal troubles as public issues. This utopianism tells and performs stories of resistance, compassion, justice, joy, community, and love (Hardt and Negri 2000:413). As pedagogical practices, performances make sites of oppression visible. In the process, they af rm an oppositional politics that reasserts the value of self-determi-

The Call to Performance

193

nation and mutual solidarity. This pedagogy of hope rescues radical democracy from the conservative politics of neoliberalism (Giroux 2001b:115). A militant utopianism offers a new language of resistance in the public and private spheres. Thus performance pedagogy energizes a radical participatory democratic vision for this new century.

PERFORMANCE, PEDAGOGY, AND POLITICS

The current historical moment requires morally informed performance disciplines that will help people recover meaning in the face of senseless, brutal violence, violence that produces voiceless screams of terror and insanity.10 Cynicism and despair reign (Giroux 2000a:110). Never have we had a greater need for a militant utopianism to help us imagine a world free of con ict, terror, and death. We need an oppositional performative social science, performance disciplines that will enable us to create oppositional utopian spaces, discourses, and experiences within our public institutions. In these spaces and places, in neighborhoods, in experimental community theaters, in independent coffee shops and bookstores, in local and national parks, on playing elds, in wilderness areas, in experiences in nature, critical democratic culture is nurtured (see Giroux 2001b:125; Stegner 1980:146). Conquergood (1998:26) and Diawara (1996) are correct. We must nd a space for a cultural studies that moves from textual ethnography to performative autoethnography. Performance-sensitive ways of knowing (Conquergood 1998:26) contribute to an epistemological and political pluralism that challenges existing ways of knowing and representing the world. Such formations are more inclusionary and better suited for thinking about postcolonial or subalteran cultural practices (Conquergood 1998:26). Performance approaches to knowing insist on immediacy and involvement. They consist of partial, plural, incomplete, and contingent understandingsnot analytic distance or detachment, the hallmarks of the textual and positivistic paradigms (Conquergood 1998:26; Pelias 1999:ix, xi). Building on Diawara (1996:304), our performative approach will create a multiracial cultural studies. Consistent with the interactionist tradition, performance ethnography studies the ways in which people, through communicative action, create and continue to create themselves with the American experience (Diawara 1996:304). This performative approach puts culture into motion. It examines, narrates, and performs the complex ways in which persons experience themselves within the shifting ethnoscapes of todays global world economy (McCall 2001:50).

The Move to Performance Ethnography

A shift in the meaning of ethnography and ethnographic writing has accompanied the move to performance. Richardson (2000:929) observes that the narrative genres connected to ethnographic writing have been blurred, enlarged, altered to include poetry [and] drama (see also Richardson 2001). She uses the term cre-

194

Symbolic Interaction

Volume 26, Number 1, 2003

ative analytic practice (CAP) to describe these many different re exive performance narrative forms. These forms include not only performance autoethnography but also short stories, conversations, ction, creative non ction, photographic essays, personal essays, personal narratives of the self, writing stories, self stories, fragmented, layered texts, critical autobiography, memoirs, personal histories, cultural criticism, co-constructed performance narratives, and performance writing,11 which blur the edges between text, representation, and criticism. In each of these forms the writer-as-performer is self-consciously present, morally and politically self-aware. She uses her own experiences in a culture re exively to bend back on self and look more deeply at self-other interactions (Ellis and Bochner 2000:740; see also Alexander 1999:300; Kincheloe and McLaren 2000:301). The task of autoethnography is now apparent: it helps the writer make sense of the autobiographic past (Alexander 1999:309). Autoethnography becomes a way of recreating and re-writing . . . the biographic past, a way of making the past a part of the biographic present (Pinar 1994:22).

Life in America after 11 September 2001

After the bombing of the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on 11 September 2001, a number of interpretive social scientists wrote about this event and its meanings in their lives. They located their statements with this violent experience in the present. Michelle Fines (2002:13738) narrative text opens thus:
The Mourning After 12.September You can tell whos dead or missing by their smiles. Their photos dot the subways, ferries, trains and Port Authority Terminal, shockingly alive with joy, comfort and pleasure. They died before they could know what we now know. The not-dead travel on subways and trains lled with hollow eyes; no smiles; shoulders down. Five thousand dead and still counting, and thats without the undocumented workers whose families cant tell, the homeless men and women whose families dont know. Each evening, millions of nightmares startle and awaken, alone and dark, throughout the metropolitan area. The air in the City chokes with smoke, esh, fear, memories, clouds and creeping nationalism. . . . Now a ood of ags, talk of God, military and patriotism chase us all.

Two days later Fine writes:

The Path train stopped. In a tunnel. No apparent reason. I couldnt breathe. Anxiety. . . . Is this an ok way to die? Lives and politics; grief and analysis. Those of us in New York seem to be having trouble writing. . . . U.S. politics then and now, racial pro ling and anxious worries about whats coming next. . . . Death, ghosts, orphans, analyses of U.S. imperialism, Middle East politics, and the terrors of terrorism sit in the same room.

The Call to Performance

195

How do you write the meaning of the present, when you have never experienced the nightmares and terror that de ne the present? Laurel Richardson (2002:25) writes:
September 11, 2001: When I hear of the airplanes and the towers, my rst thoughts arethe children. . . . What will the children be told?. . . . And then I see that the children are being told, as the adults are, through television cameras and media voices. The children are seeing the airplane and the second tower, and the airplane/tower, airplane/tower over and over until its All Fall Down. And All Fall Down again and again. I call my children. I call my stepchildren. I call my grandchildren. . . . My heart breaks for the children whose lives are broken. . . . What can I say? What can anyone say? My email Listservs are repositories for quick xes, ideological purity. . . . I cant join the discussion. I refuse to intellectualize, analyze, or academize. I dont have any answers. I call my grandsons mother to see how Akiva is doing. She tells me that he was afraid an airplane would hit his school. . . . On Rosh Hashanah the rabbi said Choose Life. I meditate on our small world. I pray. I write this piece.

As these examples demonstrate, performance autoethnographers anchor their narratives in an ongoing moral dialogue with the members of a local community, be that family, neighbors, or colleagues. Troubling the usual distinctions between self and other, they fold their own life histories and testimonios into the self-stories of others. These are performance events. Following Conquergood (1998:26) and Pollock (1998a, 1998b:40), we use performance as a lever for questioning earlier generations ethnographic textualism, a textualism that produces books with titles such as Writing Culture (Conquergood 1998:26). Using the methods of inscription and thick description, textual models turn culture into an ensemble of written words (Conquergood 1998:28; Geertz 1973:2324). The ethnographer reads culture as if it were an open book (Conquergood 1998:29). Textualism privileges distance, detachment, the said, and not the saying, the done, and not the doing (Conquergood 1998:31). In contrast, the performance autoethnographer struggles to put culture into motion (Rosaldo 1989:91), to perform culture by putting mobility, action, and agency back into play (Conquergood 1998:31). The performance paradigm privileges an experiential, participatory epistemology (Conquergood 1998:27). It values intimacy and involvement as forms of understanding. This stance allows the self to be vulnerable to its own experiences as well as to the experiences of the other (Behar 1996:3). In this interactionist epistemology, context replaces text, verbs replace nouns, structures become processes. The emphasis is on change, contingency, locality, motion, improvisation, struggle, situationally speci c practices and articulations, the performance of con/texts (Pollock 1998b:38). By privileging struggle, the performance ethnographer takes a stand (Conquergood 1998:31; Kirshenblatt-Gimblett

196

Symbolic Interaction

Volume 26, Number 1, 2003

1998:7478). The dividing line between text and context falls away. Texts are inseparable from contexts and the processes by which they are made, understood and deployed (Pollock 1998b:38). In turn, context cannot be separated from cultural practices, which are performances. Performances are the sites where context, agency, praxis, history, and subjectivity intersect (Langellier 1999:127). An improvisatory politics of resistance is anchored in this space where cultural performances, the doing and the done collide.

A Politics of Resistance
The emphasis on the politics of resistance connects symbolic interactionism and performance autoethnographies to critical Marxist participatory action theories (McLaren 2001). Participatory action theories have roots in liberation theology, neo-Marxist approaches to community development, and human rights activism in Asia and elsewhere (Kemmis and McTaggart 2000:568). These theories enable social criticism and sanction nonviolent forms of civil disobedience (Christians 2000:148). Performance autoethnography now becomes a civic, participatory, collaborative project. This project centers on an ongoing moral dialogue involving the shared ownership of the performance-project itself. Together, members of the community, as cultural workers, create the performance text and the performance event (McCall 2000:426). These community-based interpretations represent an emancipatory commitment to community action that performs social change, much like Du Boiss allblack theater (Kemmis and McTaggart 2000:568, 598). Paraphrasing Kemmis and McTaggart (2000:598), this form of performance inquiry helps people recover and release themselves from the repressive constraints embedded in the racist structures of global technocapitalism. In these performances of resistance, as Langellier (1998:210) argues, the personal becomes political. This happens precisely at that moment when the conditions of identity construction are made problematic and located in concrete history. As Mary Weems, the poet-performer says, this Evolution will not be televised. In this moment, performers claim a positive utopian space where a politics of hope can be imagined. This performance ethic asks that interpretive work provide the foundations for social criticism by subjecting speci c programs and policies to concrete analysis. Performers show how speci c policies and practices affect and effect their lives (Mienczakowski 2001). bell hooks does this when she critically re ects on the way Ed Sullivan treated Louis Armstrong on his 1950s Sunday night television show. In rereading the Sullivan show, hooks lays the foundations for a critical race consciousness. The autoethnographer invites members of the community to become coperformers in a drama of social resistance and social critique. Acting from an informed ethical position, offering emotional support to one another, co-performers bear witness to the need for social change (Langellier 1998:21011). As members of an involved social citizenship, they enact a politics of possibility, a politics that mobilizes peoples memories, fantasies, and desires (Madison 1998:277, 282). These

The Call to Performance

197

are pedagogical performances that matter. They give voice to the subalternThey do something in the world. They move people to action. Baraka ([1969] 1998:1502) said,
we want poems that wrestle cops into alleys and take their weapons . . .

Pedagogical performances have artistic, moral, political, and material consequences (Madison 1998:28384). In a performance of possibilities, moral responsibility and artistic excellence combine to produce an active intervention to . . . break through unfair closures and remake the possibility for new openings (Madison 1998:284; emphasis in original). A performance of possibilities gives voice to those on the margin, moving them for the moment to the political center (Madison 1998:284).

A Politics of Possibility
Madison shows how this politics of possibility works. In 1968 two African American women employed as cafeteria workers at the University of North Carolina led a strike. They protested for back pay, overtime pay, and better working conditions. The national guard was called in. The Chapel Hill police circled the cafeteria with guns in hand, and classes were canceled. For the two African-American women who led the strike, it was a dif cult time and an unforgettable ordeal. One woman was red; the other still works in the University cafeteria (Madison 1998:279). In 1993 the University of North Carolina was celebrating its bicentennial. Madison (1998:279) notes that some people felt it was time to honor the leaders of the (in)famous 1968 cafeteria workers strike, as well as labor culture on campus. After some time, a performance based on the personal narratives of the two leaders and other service workers was nally scheduled. On opening night the strike leaders and their partners, children, grandchildren, and friends, cafeteria workers, housekeepers, brick masons, yard keepers, and mail carriers were the honored guests with reserved seats before an over owing crowd (p. 298). Madison observes that although the university never acknowledged the strike leaders struggle or their contribution to labor equity on campus, almost thirty years later, the leaders, Mrs. Smith and Mrs. Brooks, watched themselves and their story being performed in a crowded theatre (p. 279). At the end of the performance Mrs. Smith and Mrs. Brooks were introduced and the audience gave them a thunderous and lengthy standing ovation (p. 280). Mrs. Smith said that a night like this made her struggle worthwhile (p. 280). Her grandchildren reported that they now understood their grandmothers life better after seeing the performance (p. 280). The next day the press reported that the production told a true and previously untold tale (p. 280). Madison reports that four years later workers still stop her on campus and remember and want to talk, with pride

198

Symbolic Interaction

Volume 26, Number 1, 2003

and satisfaction, about that night four years ago when their stories were honored in performance (p. 280). The performance of these stories helped these workers tell their story, empowering them before strangers and kin (p. 280). The performance became an epiphany, a liminal event that marked a crisis in the universitys history. The performance redressed this historical breach and brought dignity and stature to those who had been dishonored by the past actions of the university. The performance allowed these women and their families to bear witness to their suppressed history. This performance did not create a revolution, but it was revolutionary in enlightening citizens to the possibilities that grate against injustice (p. 280). This kind of political theater moves in three directions at the same time; it shapes subjects, audiences, and performers. In honoring subjects who have been mistreated, such performances contribute to a more [e]nlightened and involved citizenship (p. 281). These performances interrogate and evaluate speci c social, educational, economic, and political processes. This form of praxis can shape a cultural politics of change. It can help to create a progressive and involved citizenship. The performance becomes the vehicle for moving persons, subjects, performers, and audience members into new, critical, political spaces. The performance gives the audience, and the performers, equipment for [this] journey: empathy and intellect, passion and critique (p. 282). Such performances enact a performance-centered evaluation pedagogy. Thus, fusion of critical pedagogy and performance praxis uses performance as a mode of inquiry, as a method of doing evaluation ethnography, as a path to understanding, as a tool for engaging collaborative meanings of experience, as a means to mobilize people to take action in the world. This form of critical, collaborative, performance pedagogy privileges the experience, the concept of voice, and the importance of turning evaluation sites into democratic public spheres (see Worley 1998). Critical performance pedagogy informs practice, which in turn supports pedagogical conditions for an emancipatory politics (Worley 1998:139). The best art, the best performance autoethnographies, are unquestionably political and irrevocably beautiful at the same time (Morrison 1994:497). This performance ethic seeks external grounding in its commitment to a postMarxism and communitarian feminism with hope but no guarantees. It seeks to understand power and ideology through and across systems of discourse. It understands that moral and aesthetic criteria are always tted to the contingencies of concrete circumstances, assessed in terms of local understandings that ow from a feminist moral ethic (Christians 2000). This ethic calls for dialogical inquiry rooted in the concepts of care and shared governance. How this ethic works in any speci c situation cannot be predicted in advance. It has not been done before.

PERFORMATIVE CRITERIA IN THE SEVENTH MOMENT

In the seventh moment the criteria for evaluating critical performance events combine aesthetics, ethics, and epistemologies.12 Like hookss black aesthetic (1990:111)

The Call to Performance

199

and Girouxs public pedagogy (2000b:25), these performance criteria erase the usual differences between ethics, politics, and power and create the possibilities for a practical, performative pedagogy, a manifesto for a critical performance art and authoethnography, a call for performances to interrupt and intervene in public life. In feminist, communitarian13 terms, our manifesto presumes that no objective, morally neutral standpoint exists. Hence, for example, an Afrocentric feminist aesthetic (and epistemology) stresses the importance of truth, knowledge, and beauty (Black Is Beautiful) and a notion of experiential and shared wisdom. Wisdom so conceived derives from local, lived experience, and expresses lore, folktale, and myth (Collins 1991:21213). This dialogical aesthetic enacts an ethic of care, an ethic of personal and communal responsibility (Collins 1991:214; Giroux 2000a:130). It presents a moral community ontologically preceding the individual. This community has shared moral values that include concepts of shared governance, neighborliness, love, kindness, and the moral good (Christians 2000:14449). This ethic embodies a sacred, existential epistemology that locates persons in a noncompetitive, nonhierarchical relationship to the larger moral universe. This ethic declares that all persons deserve dignity and a sacred status in the world. It stresses the value of human life, truth telling, and nonviolence (Christians 2000:147). Anchored in a speci c community of moral discourse, the performer, as cultural critic, takes sides. Performers show how a participatory, feminist, communitarian ethic addresses situations of injustice. Advocates of the Black Arts Movement in the 1970s, for example, asked how much more beautiful a poem, melody, play, novel, or lm made the life of a single black person (Gayle 1997:1876). In advancing this utopian project, the performer seeks new standards and new tools of evaluation. Karenga ([1972] 1997), a theorist of the Black Arts Movement in the 1970s, argued that black art should be political, functional, collective, and committed. Politically and functionally, this art would be, as it was for Du Bois (1926:134), black theater about blacks, made by blacks, for blacks, and located in local black communities. Collectively, black art comes from the people, and must be returned to the people, in a form more beautiful and colorful than it was in real life. . . . [A]rt is everyday life given more form and color (Karenga [1972] 1997:1974). Such art is committed to political goals. It is democratic. It celebrates diversity, personal and collective freedom.14

PERFORMANCE ART
This black performance aesthetic, art by, for, and about the people, complements a new movement in the arts, a movement that has had various names: performance art, activist art, community art, and new genre public art (Lacy 1995:20; Miles 1997:164; Radford-Hill 2000:25; Rice 1990:207).15 New genre artist Suzanne Lacy (1995:910) states that this is an art whose public strategies of engagement are an important part of its aesthetic language. . . . Unlike much what of has heretofore

200

Symbolic Interaction

Volume 26, Number 1, 2003

been called public art, new genre public art . . . might include . . . installations, performances, conceptual art, mixed-media art. . . . Attacking boundaries, new genre public art draws on ideas from vanguard forms. Performance art is predicated on a history of cultural resistance (Garoian 1999:10). Earlier formations can be found in performance art and avant-garde experimental theater movements of the 1970s and 1980s (Garoian 1999:10; McCall 2000:423). New genre public art is performative, political, feminist, and activist (Garoian 1999:8). According to Lacy (1995:28), four historical factors, embedded in the conservative backlash of the 1980s and 1990s, shaped this movement: increased racial discrimination; threats to womens rights; cultural censorship targeted at women and ethnic and homosexual artists; and deepening health (AIDS) and ecological crises. This art understands, to paraphrase Giroux (2000a:136), who quotes the late Pierre Bourdieu, that there is no genuine democracy without genuine opposition. Performance art does not subscribe to the tradition of High Culture. It is revolutionary art. It reclaims the radical political identity of the artist as social critic (McCall 2000:421). In the hands of cultural workers like Suzanne Lacy, performance art dissolves the differences between artists and participants[,] . . . showing how art should be a force for information, dialogue, and social change (Giroux 2000a:136).16 Rebecca Rice, black theater artist and educator, provides another example. Rice seeks a theater for social change. Her performances illuminate the beauty and dignity of black women who have been victims of violence, abuse, and addiction (1990:212). Over the past decade, Anna Deavere Smith (1993, 1994) has created a series of one-woman performance pieces about race and racism in America (1993:xvii). She titles her series On the Road: A Search for American Character. Paraphrasing Miles (1997:164), the value of new genre activist art, like critical performance ethnography, lies in its ability to initiate a continuing process of social criticism in the public sphere. This art engages de ned publics on issues from homelessness to the survival of the rain forests, domestic violence and AIDS (Miles 1997:64). It transgresses the con nes of public and domestic domains (Miles 1997:167). It shows how public laws and policies in uence personal decisions. It shows how the limits of the public sphere shape changes in the private sphere (Miles 1997:169). Activist art challenges the relation of art and the artist to the public domain.

The Pedagogical as Performative

These new artistic formations move from the global to the local,17 the political to the personal, the pedagogical to the performative. They make the political visible through [performative] pedagogical practices that attempt to make a difference in the world rather than simply re ect it (Giroux 2000a:37). Du Boiss radical black theater performs scenes of liberation for an oppressed people. bell hookss black aesthetic and Rebecca Rices black theater imagine and perform liberated subjectivities for African American women.

The Call to Performance

201

Performance art is shaped by six pedagogical strategies, six forms of intervention which trouble the relationships between ethnography, eldword, culture, language, ideology, race, the body, community and technology (Garoian 1999, p. 45). The rst strategy is methodological. Performance art pedagogy rede nes ethnography as reexive, performative autoethnography (Garoian 1999, p. 44). The second strategy focuses on the performance and use of language as a way of criticizing the cultural metaphors that codify and stereotype the [racial] self and the body (Garoian 1999, p. 44). The third pedagogical strategy uses performance art as a way of generating spectacles of resistance which challenge the structures of power that circulate in speci c sites like schools or hospitals. The fourth strategy performs community, by empowering citizens to work collaboratively in restoring . . . civility in their neighborhoods (Garoian 1999:44). Using the body as a site of intervention, the fth and sixth strategies show howmachine-body transactions scar and shape the material and lived body, its fantasies, desires, illnesses, and pains. At these levels, performance art pedagogy examines the aesthetic experiences that surround the embodied expression of a culture, and its racial and gender codes (Garoian 1999:45). Performance art pedagogy re exively critiques those cultural practices that reproduce oppression. At the performative level this pedagogy locates performances within these repressive practices, creating discourses that make the struggles of democracy more visible. In their performances, artists, teachers, students, and other cultural workers invoke their personal memories and histories[;] . . . they engage in storytelling (Garoian 1999:5). They perform testimonios. They remember, misremember, interpret and passionately revisit . . . [the] past and [the] present (Diamond 1996:1). In so doing, they invoke a continuum of past performances, a history . . . juxtaposed . . . with existential experiences (Diamond 1996:1). Through their co-performances cultural workers critique and evaluate culture, turning history back in upon itself, creating possibilities for new historical ideas, images, new subjectivities, new cultural practices (Diamond 1996:2; Garoian 1999:6). Building on Giroux (2000a:138), these forms of democratic practice turn the political into a set of performance events. Occurring in the here and now, these performances contest situations of oppression. They make things happen. They are consequential. They initiate and model change. In these events performers intervene in the liminal and politicized spaces of the culture (Garoian 1999:50). These events, or happenings, reclaim the political as pedagogical (Giroux 2000a:138). As sites of resistance, they connect mystory performances to popular, personal, and scholarly cultural texts.18 These texts are located in their institutional and historical moments, the sites of power in everyday life. These performances join transnational and postcolonial narratives with storytelling about personal problems experienced at the local level. These interventions represent pedagogy done in the public interest, democratic art for, by, and of the people. Bryant Keith Alexander offers an example of such performances in his discus-

202

Symbolic Interaction

Volume 26, Number 1, 2003

sion of black barbershops as cultural spaces where the past and the present permeate identities and memories:
Black people enter these spaces for cultural maintance and cultural proliferation. As I sit in the barbers chair my body, like my history, is in relation to other Black bodies. . . . Mr. Brown, Luke, Deanna and those who came before and those who will follow are simultaneously present. The fading, twisting, and weaving of hair, of voices, and life stories are a part of the process, a part of the experience, a part of me. But these are my stories. My hair tells its own story. (Alexander 2002:17)

Everybodys hair tells a story, and in these stories culture is performed, and the political becomes personal and pedagogical.

CONCLUSION
In this manifesto I have argued that symbolic interactionism is at a crossroads. We face a challenge, how to reclaim the progressive heritage given to us by Du Bois, Mead, Dewey, and Blumer. I have suggested that we need to craft an emancipatory discourse that speaks to the issues of racial inequality under neoliberal forms of governmentality. This discourse requires a turn to a performance-based approach to culture, politics, and pedagogy. We need to explore performance autoethnography as a vehicle for enacting a performative cultural politics of hope. I have outlined provisional interpretive criteria for others to evaluate and continue this important work.

Acknowledgments: I thank Art Bochner, Kathy Charmaz, Andrea Fontana,

Laurel Richardson, and Rebecca Small for their comments on earlier versions of this manuscript.

NOTES
1. A performative cultural studies enacts a critical, cultural pedagogy. It does so by using dialogue, performative writing, and the staging and performance of texts involving audience members (see Schutz 2001:146). 2. For McLaren (1998:441) and Kincheloe and McLaren (2000:285), cultural pedagogy refers to the ways that cultural production functions as a form of education, as it generates knowledge, shapes values and constructs identity. . . . [C]ultural pedagogy refers to the ways particular cultural agents produce . . . hegemonic ways of seeing. Critical pedagogy (McLaren 1998:441) attempts to performatively disrupt and deconstruct these cultural practices in the name of a more just, democratic and egalitarian society (Kincheloe and McLaren 2000:285; but see Lather 1998). 3. Although this text is a call to performance, it is not an example of performance writing per se (see Bochner and Ellis 2002; Madison 1999; Phelan 1993, 1998). I do not intend this essay to be a deconstruction of the classic journal style; however, I do want to privilege texts that are meant to be performed. 4. Denzin and Lincoln (2000:2) de ne the seven moments of inquiry, all of which operate in the

The Call to Performance

203

5.

6.

7.

8. 9. 10. 11.

12.

13. 14. 15.

16. 17. 18.

present, as the traditional (19001950), the modernist (195070), blurred genres (197086), the crisis of representation (198690), postmodern or experimental (199095), postexperimental (19952000), and the future (2000 ). Race and racism for Du Bois were social constructions and performances. Minstrelsy and blackface were powerful devices that produced and reproduced the color line. Du Bois believed that African Americans needed performance spaces where they could control how race was constructed. Consequently, as Elam (2001:56) observes, African American theater and performance have been central sites for the interrogation of race and the color line (see also Elam and Krasner 2001). The inherent constructedness of performance and the malleability of the devices of the theater serve to reinforce the theory that blackness . . . and race . . . are hybrid, uid concepts (Elam 2001:45). Stuart Hall (1996:473) is correct, persons of color have never been able to successfully escape the politics and theaters of (racial) representation. McChesneys (1994:4) de nition of democracy is as good as any: the many should and do make the core political decisions. This de nition authorizes democracy in the participatory and not the representational mode. A viable participatory democracy takes the word away from those neoliberal discourses that have reduced democracy to the needs of capitalism and the attendant corporate colonization of public life in America today (Giroux 2001b:122). In Austins theory the term performative designated the kind of utterance that actually does something in the world, e.g., promising, forgiving . . . as opposed to constative utterances that merely report on a state of affairs independent of the act of enunciation (Conquergood 1998:32; for criticisms, see Garoian 1999:4; Austin 1962:5, 1415, 108; Perinbanayagam 1991:113). Derrida reworks Austins performativity as citationality[,] . . . dissolving constative into performative speech (Pollock 1998b:39). Schechner (1998:362) observes that this is the performative Austin introduced and Butler and queer theorists discuss. I take the title of this section from Conquergood 1998. Those words are written on 14 September 2001, three days after the attack on the World Trade Center in New York City and the Pentagon in Washington, D.C. Performance writing shows, rather than tells. It enacts what it describes. Performance writing is evocative, re exive, multivocal, citational, always incomplete (Phelan 1998:13; Pollock 1998a:80 95). De nitions: Aesthetics: Theories of beauty; Ethics: Theories of ought, of right; Epistemology: Theories of knowing. This section draws from Denzin (2001d:326 27). Under this framework, nothing is value-free, theory and practice cannot be divorced, all inquiry is moral, knowledge is power, and those who have power determine what is aesthetically pleasing and ethically acceptable. According to Christians (2000:151), there are three strands of communitarian ethical theory: feminist theory, critical theory, and participatory inquiry. These parallel Du Boiss four criteria for real black theater; such theater, he said, should be about us, by us, for us, near us (1926:134). Sharon Irish has helped clarify my understanding of these terms, suggesting that community or public art usually occurs outside museums and galleries, thereby emphasizing the hoped-for connection between artist and audience (see also Garoian 1999:27). Garoian (1999:42) treats postmodern performance art as a new genre of public art. This genre invites citizens to participate in the production and the collective ownership of performances that intervene in public life. In countless public works, Lacy has focused attention on rape, womens rights, immigration, racism, aging, and domestic violence. For example, in The Electronic Disturbance the Critical Art Ensemble, an anarchist group, models a form of local and global resistance in cyberspace. A mystory (Denzin 1997:116; Ulmer 1989:210) is simultaneously a personal mythology, a public story, and a performance that critiques. The mystory is a montage text, cinematic and multimedia in shape, lled with sounds, music, and images taken from the writers personal history. This personal text (script) is grafted onto discourses from popular culture and locates itself against the specialized knowledges that circulate in the larger society.

204

Symbolic Interaction

Volume 26, Number 1, 2003

REFERENCES
Alexander, Bryant Keith. 1999. Performing Culture in the Classroom: An Instructional (Auto) Ethnography. Text and Performance Quarterly 19:30731. . 2002. Fading, Twisting and Weaving: An Interpretive Ethnography of the Black Barbershop as a Cultural Space. Qualitative Inquiry 9:1. Austin, J. L. 1962. How to Do Things with Words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Baraka, Amiri [LeRoi Jones]. 1979. The Revolutionary Theatre. Pp. 13136 in Selected Plays and Prose of Amiri Baraka/LeRoi Jones. New York: William Morrow. . [1969] 1998. Black Art. Pp. 15012 in Call & Response: The Riverside Anthology of the African American Tradition, edited by P. H. Hill. Boston: Houghton Mif in. Behar, Ruth. 1996. The Vulnerable Observer: Anthropology That Breaks Your Heart. Boston: Beacon. Bochner, Arthur P. and Carolyn Ellis. 1996. Introduction: Talking Over Ethnography. Pp. 1345 in Composing Ethnography: Alternative Forms of Qualitative Writing, edited by C. Ellis and A. P. Bochner.Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press. . 2002. How Does a Conference Begin? Pp. 110 in Ethnographically Speaking: Autoethnography, Literature, and Aesthetics, edited by A. P. Bochner and C. Ellis. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press. Bruner, Edward M. 1986. Experience and Its Expressions. Pp. 330 in The Anthropology of Experience, edited by V. M. Turner and E. M. Bruner. Urbana: University of Illinois Press. Burke, Kenneth. 1969. Rhetoric of Motives. Berkeley: University of California Press. Butler, Judith. 1993a. Bodies That Matter. New York: Routledge. . 1993b. Imitation and Gender Insubordination [Extract]. Pp. 63748 in Social Theory: The Multicultural and Classic Readings, edited by C. Lemert. Boulder, CO: Westview. . 1997. Excitable Speech: A Politics of the Performative. New York: Routledge. Christians, Clifford. 2000. Ethics and Politics in Qualitative Research. Pp. 13355 in Handbook of Qualitative Research, 2d ed., edited by N. K. Denzin and Y. S. Lincoln. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Collins, Patricia Hill. 1991. Black Feminist Thought. New York: Routledge. Conquergood, Dwight. 1985. Performing as a Moral Act: Ethical Dimensions of the Ethnography of Performance. Literature in Performance 5:113. . 1989. Poetics, Play, Process and Power: The Performance Turn in Anthropology. Text and Performance Quarterly 9:8288. . 1991. Rethinking Ethnography: Towards a Critical Cultural Politics. Communication Monographs 58:17994. . 1998. Beyond the Text: Toward a Performative Cultural Politics. Pp. 2536 in The Future of Performance Studies: Visions and Revisions, edited by S. J. Dailey. Washington, DC: National Communication Association. Dailey, Sheron J. 1998a. Editors Note. Pp. ixxii in The Future of Performance Studies: Visions and Revisions, edited by S. J. Dailey. Washington, DC: National Communication Association. . 1998b. Personal Narratives: Problems and Possibilities. Pp. 199202 in The Future of Performance Studies: Visions and Revisions, edited by S. J. Dailey. Washington, DC: National Communication Association. Denzin, Norman K. 1984. On Understanding Emotion. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. . 1992. Symbolic Interactionism and Cultural Studies. Cambridge: Blackwell. . 1995. The Cinematic Society. London: Sage. . 1997. Interpretive Ethnography. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. . 2001a. Cowboys and Indians. Symbolic Interaction 25:25161. . 2001b. Interpretive Interactionism , 2d ed. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. . 2001c. Reading Race: Hollywood and the Cinema of Racial Violence. London: Sage. . 2001d. The Seventh Moment: Qualitative Inquiry and the Practices of a More Radical Consumer Research. Journal of Consumer Research 28:32430. Denzin, Norman K. and Yvonna S. Lincoln. 2000. Introduction: The Discipline and Practice of

The Call to Performance

205

Qualitative Research. Pp. 129 in Handbook of Qualitative Research, 2d ed., edited by N. K. Denzin and Y. S. Lincoln. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Derrida, Jacques. 1973. Speech and Phenomena. Evanston: Northwestern University Press. .1988. Limited, Inc. Evanston: Northwestern University Press. Diamond, Elin. 1996. Introduction. Pp. 112 in Performances and Cultural Politics, edited by E. Diamond. New York: Routledge. Diawara, Mantha. 1996. Black Studies, Cultural Studies: Performative Acts. Pp. 300306 in What Is Cultural Studies, edited by J. Storey. London: Arnold. Du Bois, W. E. B. 1926. Krigwa Players Little Negro Theatre: The Story of a Little Theatre Movement. Crisis 32(July):134 36. . [1901] 1978. The Problem of the Twentieth Century Is the Problem of the Color Line. Pp. 28189 in W. E. B. Du Bois: On Sociology and the Black Community, edited and with an introduction by D. S. Green and E. Driver. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Dunn, Robert G. 1998. Identity Crises: A Social Critique of Postmodernity. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Elam, Harry J., Jr. 2001. The Device of Race. Pp. 316 in African American Performance and Theater History: A Critical Reader, edited by H. J. Elam Jr. and D. Krasner. New York: Oxford University Press. Elam, Harry J., Jr. and David Krasner, eds. 2001. African American Performance and Theater History: A Critical Reader. New York: Oxford University Press. Ellis, Carolyn and Arthur P. Bochner. 2000. Autoethnography, Personal Narrative, Re exivity: Researcher as Subject. Pp. 73368 in Handbook of Qualitative Research, 2d ed., edited by N. K. Denzin and Y. S. Lincoln. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Fine, Michelle. 2002. The Mourning After. Qualitative Inquiry 8:13745. Garoian, Charles R. 1999. Performing Pedagogy: Toward an Art of Politics. Albany: SUNY Press. Gayle, Addison, Jr. 1997. The Black Aesthetic. Pp. 187077 in The Norton Anthology of African American Literature, edited by H. L. Gates Jr. and N. Y. McKay. New York: W. W. Norton. (Originally published 1971.) Geertz, Clifford. 1973. The Interpretation of Culture. New York: Basic Books. Giroux, Henry. 2000a. Impure Acts: The Practical Politics of Cultural Studies. New York: Routledge. . 2000b. Stealing Innocence: Corporate Cultures War on Children. New York: Palgrave. . 2001a. Cultural Studies as Performative Politics. Cultural StudiesCritical Methodologies 1:523. . 2001b. Public Spaces, Private Lives. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Little eld. Giroux, Henry and Peter McLaren. 1989. Introduction. Pp. xixxxv in Critical Pedagogy, the State, and Cultural Struggle, edited by H. Giroux and P. McLaren. Albany: SUNY Press. Goffman, Erving. 1959. The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. New York: Doubleday. Grossberg, Lawrence. 1997. The Context of Audiences and the Politics of Difference. Pp. 32042 in Bringing It All Back Home: Essays in Cultural Studies, by Lawrence Grossberg. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Hall, Stuart. 1996. What Is This Black in Black Popular Culture? Pp. 46575 in Stuart Hall: Critical Dialogues in Cultural Studies, edited by D. Morley and K.-H. Chen. London: Routledge. Hardt, Michael and Antonio Negri. 2000. Empire. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Hartnett, Stephen. 2002. Visiting Mario. Cultural StudiesCritical Methodologies 3:4. hooks, bell. 1990. Yearning: Race, Gender, and Cultural Politics. Boston: South End Press. Jones, Stacy Holman. 2002. The Way We Were, Are, and Might Be: Torch Singing as Autoethnography. Pp. 4456 in Ethnographically Speaking: Autoethnography, Literature, and Aesthetics, edited by A. P. Bochner and C. Ellis. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press. Karenga, Maulana. 1997. Black Art: Mute Matter Given Force and Function. Pp. 17480 in The Norton Anthology of African American Literature, edited by H. L. Gates Jr. and N. Y. McKay. New York: W. W. Norton. (Originally published in Black Poets and Prophets, edited by W. King and E. Anthony, 17480. New York: Mentor Press, 1972.) Kemmis, Stephen and Robin McTaggart. 2000. Participatory Action Research. Pp. 567606 in

206

Symbolic Interaction

Volume 26, Number 1, 2003

Handbook of Qualitative Research, 2d ed., edited by N. K. Denzin and Y. S. Lincoln. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Kincheloe, Joe L. and Peter McLaren. 2000. Rethinking Critical Theory and Qualitative Research. Pp. 279314 in Handbook of Qualitative Research, 2d ed., edited by N. K. Denzin and Y. S. Lincoln. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Kirshenblatt-Gimblett, Barbara. 1998. Destination Culture: Tourism, Museums, and Heritage. Berkeley: University of California Press. Lacy, Suzanne. 1995. Cultural Pilgrimages and Metaphoric Journeys. Pp. 120 in Mapping the Terrain: New Genre Public Art, edited by S. Lane. Seattle: Bay Press. Ladson-Billings, Gloria. 2000. Racialized Discourses and Ethnic Epistemologies. Pp. 25778 in Handbook of Qualitative Research, 2d ed., edited by N. K. Denzin and Y. S. Lincoln. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Langellier, Kristin M. 1998. Voiceless Bodies, Bodiless Voices: The Future of Personal Narrative Performance. Pp. 20713 in The Future of Performance Studies: Visions and Revisions, edited by S. J. Dailey. Washington, DC: National Communication Association. . 1999. Personal Narrative, Performance, Performativity: Two or Three Things I Know for Sure. Text and Performance Quarterly 19:12544. Lyman, Stanford M. and Arthur J. Vidich. 1988. Social Order and the Public Philosophy: An Analysis and Interpretation of the Work of Herbert Blumer. Fayette: University of Arkansas Press. Madison, D. Soyini. 1998. Performances, Personal Narratives, and the Politics of Possibility. Pp. 27686 in The Future of Performance Studies: Visions and Revisions, edited by S. J. Dailey. Washington, DC: National Communication Association. . 1999. Performing Theory/Embodied Writing. Text and Performance Quarterly 19:107 24. McCall, Michal. 2000. Performance Ethnography: A Brief History and Some Advice. Pp. 42134 in Handbook of Qualitative Research, 2d ed., edited by N. K. Denzin and Y. S. Lincoln. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. . 2001. Three Stories of Loss and Return. Cultural StudiesCritical Methodologies 1:5061. McChesney, Robert W. 1999. Rich Media, Poor Democracy. Urbana: University of Illinois Press. McLaren, Peter. 1998. Revolutionary Pedagogy in Post-Revolutionary Times: Rethinking the Political Economy of Critical Education. Educational Theory 48:43162. . 2001. Che Guevara, Paulo Freire, and the Politics of Hope: Reclaiming Critical Pedagogy. Cultural StudiesCritical Methodologies 1:10831. Mead, George Herbert. 1938. The Philosophy of the Act. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Mienczakowski, Jim. 2001. Ethnodrama: Performed ResearchLimitations and Potential. Pp. 46876 in Handbook of Ethnography, edited by P. Atkinson, S. Delamont, and A. Coffey. London: Sage. Miles, Malcolm. 1997. Art, State and the City: Public Art and Urban Futures. New York: Routledge. Mills, W. Wright. 1959. The Sociological Imagination. New York: Oxford University Press. Morrison, Toni. 1994. Rootedness: The Ancestor as Foundation. Pp. 49097 in The Woman That I Am: The Literature and Culture of Contemporary Women of Color, edited by D. S. Madison. New York: St. Martins Press. Pelias, Ronald J. 1999. Writing Performance: Poeticizing the Researchers Body. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press. Perinbanayagam, R. S. 1991. Discursive Acts. New York: Aldine de Gruyter. Phelan, Peggy. 1993. Unmarked: The Politics of Performance. New York: Routledge. . 1998. Introduction: The Ends of Performance. Pp. 119 in The Ends of Performance, edited by P. Phelan and J. Lane. New York: New York University Press. Pinar, William. 1994. Autobiography, Politics and Sexuality. New York: Peter Lang. Pollock, Della. 1998a. Performing Writing. Pp. 73103 in The Ends of Performance, edited by P. Phelan and J. Lane. New York: New York University Press. Pollock, Della. 1998b. A Response to Dwight Conquergoods Essay: Beyond the Text: Towards a

The Call to Performance

207

Performative Cultural Politics. Pp. 3746 in The Future of Performance Studies: Visions and Revisions, edited by S. J. Dailey. Washington, DC: National Communication Association. Radford-Hill, Sheila. 2000. Further to Fly: Black Women and the Politics of Empowerment. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Reynolds, Larry T. 2000. General Introduction: Sociology in Its Time and Place. Pp. 115 in SelfAnalytical Sociology: Essays and Explorations in the Re ective Mode, edited by L. T. Reynolds. Rockport, TX: Magner Publishing. Richardson, Laurel. 2000. Writing: A Method of Inquiry. Pp. 92348 in Handbook of Qualitative Research, 2d ed., edited by N. K. Denzin and Y. S. Lincoln Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. . 2001. Poetic Representation of Interviews. Pp. 87792 in Handbook of Interview Research, edited by J. F. Gubrium and J. A. Holstein. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. . 2002. Small World. Cultural StudiesCritical Methodologies 2(1):2325. Rice, Rebecca. 1990. Losing Faith (or Gaining Perspective). Pp. 20513 in Remaking America: The Art of Social Change, edited by M. OBrien and C. Little. Santa Cruz, CA: New Society Publishing. Rosaldo, Renato. 1989. Culture and the Truth. Boston: Beacon. Schechner, Richard. 1998. What Is Performance Studies Anyway? Pp. 35762 in The Ends of Performance, edited by P. Phelan and J. Lane. New York: New York University Press. Schutz, Aaron. 2001. Theory as Performative Pedagogy: Three Masks of Hannah Arendt. Educational Theory 51:12750. Smith, Anna Deavere. 1993. Fires in the Mirror. New York: Doubleday. . 1994. Twilight: Los Angeles, 1992. New York: Doubleday. . 2000. Talk to Me: Between the Lines. New York: Random House. Stegner, Wallace. 1980. Coda: Wilderness Letter. Pp. 14553 in The Sound of Mountain Water: The Changing American West, by Wallace Stegner New York: Penguin Books. Turner, Victor. 1986. The Anthropology of Performance. New York: Performing Arts Journal Publications. Ulmer, Gregory. 1989. Teletheory. New York: Routledge. Weems, Mary. 2002. I Speak from the Wound That Is My Mouth. New York: Peter Lang. Willis, Paul. 1990. Common Culture: Symbolic Work at Play in the Everyday Culture of the Young. Milton Keynes: Open University Press. Wilson, August. 1996. The Ground on Which I Stand. American Theatre (September):11. Worley, David W. 1998. Is Critical Performative Pedagogy Practical? Pp. 13640 in The Future of Performance Studies: Visions and Revisions, edited by S. J. Dailey. Washington, DC: National Communication Association.