• Introduction to the Special Section
• Emily Sahakian (bio), Christiana Molldrem Harkulich (bio), and Lisa Jackson-Schebetta (bio)

How do we constitute, characterize, or categorize “hemispheric historiography” in the field of theatre history? How do we do theatre historiography hemispherically? How do we write and teach histories of hemispheric theatre and performance?

The term “hemispheric” involves a seeming contradiction: On the one hand, it implies a geographic and spatial demarcation (the Americas or the Western hemisphere) and, on the other, it involves crossing borders and nations, defying the constraints of place. Hemispheric is an idea and practice associated more with performance studies than with theatre history, and Diana Taylor and others locate it explicitly in performance.¹ The Hemispheric Institute of Performance and Politics, for which Taylor is founding director, delineates the area of study through its emphasis on social justice, collaboration, connection, archive, and the bridging of multiple languages and locales, in both theory and practice.² Though work in the field of hemispheric performance studies, including the contributions of the Hemispheric Institute, generally focuses on the Americas, a geographical-spatial scope is not the most important delineating factor, as Jill Lane has argued. She conceptualizes the hemispheric “as a set of connected practices in deep time,” issuing “a call to historians to ask not what or where, but “when America is.”³ Lane’s provocation prompted us, as editors, to ask not only when the hemispheric is but, specifically, how it is in relation to theatre history. The hemispheric, Lane persuasively agues, exists across multiple temporalities and engages deeply with the histories and legacies of (neo)colonialism and neoliberalism. [End Page 117]

We additionally took our cue from Wai Chee Dimock, who challenged us to think of the hemispheric as a vector, “a way to re—think the contours of the planet, looking East and West as well as North and South.”⁴ In issuing our call to theatre historians, we wanted to decenter US theatre and to invite authors to make interventions across areas of study and geographic realms. Via the “hemispheric,” we sought to expand lines of inquiry into theatre historiography, in dialogue with kindred work on “performance in the borderlands.” As Ramón Rivera-Servera and Harvey Young point out, “the performances of and about the border iterate both disciplinary and transgressive forces that map out the conflicted terrain of the historical traumas of colonization as well as the present violence of forceful neoliberal adjustments and uneven developments.”⁵ The discussion that the essays featured here frame and open plays out not only across borders, temporalities, areas, and disciplines, but also via exchange, cocreation, multidirectionality, and deep, multilayered, intimate historical experiences and legacies.

The second term, “historiography,” that is, the study of and problems associated with the writing of (theatre) history, signaled our focus on methodology, process, and conscientious reflection. “To practice theater historiography,” write Henry Bial and Scott Magelssen, “means to look beyond the record of ‘what happened’ to analyze how and why such records are constructed.”⁶ We invited authors to consider how hemispheric historiography, as a method, demands that we rethink (1) how we select and conceive of our objects and sites of theatre history study; (2) how we think about chronologies and temporalities; (3) how we engage with archives, repertoires, and other evidence; and (4) which knowledges we value, and how we ascribe and define that value. Authors responded to our call with experiments and manifestations. Their contributions remind us of the ways in which a hemispheric historiographical methodology requires capacious intellectual and affective labor: sharing authority, intervening in past and present trauma, and sharing process. The authors’ work, collected here, exposes how the hemispheric invites us to do, teach, and write theatre history differently. Across and between the five essays, we witness the dismantling of nation-based narratives, innovative uses of archives, intimate connections between writers and historical agents, the prioritization of collaborative knowledge creation, the centering of indigenous cosmologies, and multidirectional, interdisciplinary explorations. These works remind us that employing the hemispheric as method, to quote Patricia Ybarra’s opening essay, is “not an additive operation, but an epistemological one that questions the definition of performance” and of history.

In “Gestures...

• 特别科简介
• 艾米莉·萨哈卡（Emily Sahakian）（生物），克里斯蒂安娜（Christiana Molldrem Harkulich）（生物）和丽莎·杰克逊（Lisa Jackson-Schebetta）（生物）

在戏剧史领域，我们如何构成，表征或分类“半球史学”？我们如何在半球形的剧院历史学中进行研究？我们如何编写和教授半球戏剧和表演的历史？

“半球”一词涉及一个表面上的矛盾：一方面，它意味着地理和空间上的界限（美洲或西半球）；另一方面，它涉及跨越边界和国家，克服了地域限制。“半球”是一种与表演研究相关的思想和实践，而不是与剧院历史相关的，戴安娜·泰勒和其他人将其明确地定位于表演。¹泰勒（Taylor）担任负责人的半球绩效与政治研究所通过强调社会正义，合作，联系，档案以及在理论和实践上架桥多种语言和地区来描绘研究领域。^2个尽管在半球性能研究领域中的工作（包括半球研究所的贡献）通常集中在美洲，但正如吉尔·莱恩（Jill Lane）所论证的那样，地理空间范围并不是最重要的划定因素。她将半球概念“深层次地视为一系列相互联系的实践”，发出“呼吁历史学家不要问什么或在哪里，而要问“美国何时”。³ Lane的挑衅促使我们，作为编辑，不仅问半球是什么时候，而且特别是，问半球与剧院历史的关系。巷道说服了半球，跨多个时间存在，并且与（新）殖民主义和新自由主义的历史和遗产深深地交涉。[第117页]

我们还从怀切·迪莫克（Wai Chee Dimock）那里得到了启发，他向我们提出挑战，将半球视为向量，“一种重新思考行星轮廓的方法，既看东西，又看南北。” ⁴在向剧院历史学家发出呼吁时，我们希望使美国剧院偏离中心，并邀请作者对研究领域和地理领域进行干预。通过“半球”，我们试图与有关“边疆表演”的同类工作进行对话，以扩大对戏剧史的研究范围。正如RamónRivera-Servera和Harvey Young所指出的那样，“边境的表现使纪律和侵略力量反复出现，它们勾勒出殖民历史创伤以及当前强行进行的新自由主义调整和不均衡发展的暴力冲突的地形。 。” ⁵ 本文的特色在于框架的开放性讨论，不仅跨越边界，时空，地区和学科，而且通过交流，共创，多方向性以及深层次，多层次，亲密的历史经验和遗产进行。

第二个术语“历史学”，即对（戏剧）历史写作的研究以及与之相关的问题，标志着我们对方法论，过程和认真思考的关注。亨利·比尔（Henry Bial）和斯科特·麦格森（Scott Magelssen）写道：“要实践戏剧史学，就是要超越'发生了什么'的记录，以分析这些记录的构造方式和原因。” ⁶我们邀请作者考虑半球历史学作为一种方法如何要求我们重新思考（1）如何选择和构想剧院历史研究的对象和地点；（2）我们如何看待时间和时间；（3）我们如何处理档案，曲目和其他证据；（4）我们重视哪些知识，以及我们如何归属和定义该价值。作者以实验和表现形式回应了我们的呼吁。他们的贡献使我们想起了半球历史学方法论需要宽敞的智力和情感劳动的方式：共享权威，干预过去和现在的创伤以及共享过程。作者的作品收集在这里，揭示了半球如何邀请我们去做，教授和书写戏剧历史。在五篇论文之间和之间，我们目睹了以民族为基础的叙事的拆除，档案的创新使用，作家与历史人物之间的亲密联系，协作知识创造的优先次序，土著宇宙学的中心定位以及多方向，跨学科的探索。这些作品提醒我们，以帕特里夏·伊巴拉（Patricia Ybarra）的开篇论文为例，采用半球法是“不是加法运算，而是对性能定义和历史提出质疑的认识论运算”。

在“手势...