当前位置: X-MOL 学术Theatre Journal › 论文详情
Our official English website, www.x-mol.net, welcomes your feedback! (Note: you will need to create a separate account there.)
Thinking Through Phenomena: Theatre Phenomenology in Theory and Practice
Theatre Journal Pub Date : 2022-09-24
Andrew Sofer

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

  • Thinking Through Phenomena: Theatre Phenomenology in Theory and Practice
  • Andrew Sofer (bio)
THEATRE AND PHENOMENOLOGY: MANUAL PHILOSOPHY. By Daniel Johnston. London: Bloomsbury Publishing, 2017; pp. 210. KINESTHETIC SPECTATORSHIP IN THE THEATRE: PHENOMENOLOGY, COGNITION, MOVEMENT. By Stanton B. Garner Jr. Cham, Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan, 2018; pp. 290. PERFORMANCE AND PHENOMENOLOGY: TRADITIONS AND TRANSFORMATIONS. Edited by Maaike Bleeker, Jon Foley Sherman, and Eirini Nedelkopoulou. Abingdon, UK: Routledge, 2015; pp. 264. PERFORMANCE PHENOMENOLOGY: TO THE THING ITSELF. Edited by Stuart Grant, Jodie McNeilly-Renaudie, and Matthew Wagner. Cham, Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan, 2019; pp. 358.

Phenomenology, a philosophical method founded by Edmund Husserl, brackets Kant’s things-in-themselves (noumena) in order to describe phenomena as they appear to human consciousness. Phenomenologists ask: How do we get behind our prefabricated concepts to what Husserl notoriously calls “the things themselves”?1 Theatre [End Page 389] also frees us from habitual perceptions and ontological presuppositions—what Husserl labels the “natural attitude.” And as Jacques Derrida and others have noted, something remarkably like Husserl’s famous phenomenological reduction (epochē) takes place in theatre when the houselights go down.2 Struck by this consonance, between 1980 and the mid-’90s first-wave theatre phenomenologists pioneered a versatile alternative to semiotic, materialist, and poststructuralist criticism that illuminated such topics as role-playing onstage (Bruce Wilshire); settings and furniture in Chekhov (Bert O. States); dramatic action (Alice Rayner); and the visual field in Beckett’s late plays (Stanton B. Garner Jr.).3 Meanwhile Phillip Zarrilli launched his decades-long exploration of the intercultural phenomenology of acting.4

In the past decade or so, second-wave theatre phenomenology has flourished both within and alongside the emergent fields of performance philosophy and performance as research.5 Two strains, roughly speaking, have emerged. The first pursues generalizable truths about aesthetic experience and favors the methodology and/or aims of classical phenomenology, however contested (Paul Ricoeur wittily defines phenomenology as “the sum of Husserl’s work and the heresies issuing from it”).6 As Stuart Grant usefully frames this approach, “[p]henomenology claims access to a fundamental-transcendental level of cognition, perception, intersubjectivity and being which would apply to all humans.”7 Some thinkers ally with recent cognitive neuroscience, which promises to validate or at least complement phenomenological insights (thereby inverting Husserl’s [End Page 390] original contention that science needs phenomenology, a science of sciences, to undergird its own shaky metaphysical assumptions).8

Classical phenomenology as a philosophical tradition suffers from a reputation for Teutonic obscurity, as well as from charges of white male essentialism and the denial of difference; that Heidegger became a Nazi who turned against his teacher Husserl did phenomenology’s reputation no favors. A second strain of contemporary theatre phenomenology privileges historically and/or culturally marginalized experiences, together with more personal modes of elucidation such as auto-ethnography and performative writing. Skeptical of transcultural human truths and transcendental perceptual structures, this camp overlaps with critical phenomenology: a broad movement that draws from feminist, critical race, disability, and queer and trans theories.9 In practice, many scholars have a foot in both camps; as far back as 2001, Garner observed that theatre phenomenology has been “a hybridized, dialogic investigation decidedly different from the ‘pure’ or transcendent phenomenology of its Husserlian origins.”10

The four books under consideration here span the full spectrum between hardline classicism and subjective experimentalism. Designed as an introductory textbook for theatre-makers, Daniel Johnston’s inviting and breezily written Theatre and Phenomenology: Manual Philosophy tends toward the latter, albeit placing its do-it-yourself pedagogical program within a traditionalist conceptual framework. Johnston takes up Heidegger’s investigation of what makes humans Dasein, creatures for whom Being occurs as a problem. For Johnston, phenomenology holds that “knowing is not the primary way in which humans experience the world” (103); freed from metaphysics, Heidegger’s “manual philosophy” (the phrase comes from Lucian of Samosata) returns us to things as we find them in the moment. As a practical philosophy, theatre exemplifies aletheia (truth) as process or Ereignis (“Event”): not a representation of some offstage world, but a process that brings Heideggerian Being itself into view. Phenomenology offers [End Page 391] student actors (and others) curious about their own...



中文翻译:

通过现象思考:理论与实践中的戏剧现象学

代替摘要,这里是内容的简短摘录:

  • 通过现象思考:理论与实践中的戏剧现象学
  • 安德鲁·索弗(生物)
戏剧与现象学:手册哲学。通过丹尼尔约翰斯顿。伦敦:布卢姆斯伯里出版社,2017;pp. 210.剧场中的动感观看:现象学、认知、运动。作者:Stanton B. Garner Jr. Cham,瑞士:Palgrave Macmillan,2018;pp. 290.性能和现象学:传统和转变。由 Maaike Bleeker、Jon Foley Sherman 和 Eirini Nedelkopoulou 编辑。英国阿宾登:Routledge,2015;pp. 264.表现现象学:对事物本身。由 Stuart Grant、Jodie McNeilly-Renaudie 和 Matthew Wagner 编辑。瑞士 Cham:Palgrave Macmillan,2019;第 358 页。

现象学是埃德蒙·胡塞尔创立的一种哲学方法,将康德的自在之物(本体)括起来,以便描述在人类意识中出现的现象。现象学家问:我们如何才能将我们预制的概念背后的胡塞尔称为臭名昭著的“事物本身”?1剧院[End Page 389]还使我们摆脱了习惯性的感知和本体论预设——胡塞尔称之为“自然态度”。正如雅克·德里达(Jacques Derrida)和其他人所指出的,当室内灯光熄灭时,戏剧中发生了与胡塞尔著名的现象学还原(epochē )非常相似的事情。2受到这种共鸣的影响,在 1980 年至 90 年代中期,第一波戏剧现象学家开创了一种替代符号学、唯物主义和后结构主义批评的多功能替代方案,阐明了舞台上的角色扮演等主题(布鲁斯·威尔希尔);Chekhov (Bert O. 州) 的布景和家具;戏剧性的动作(爱丽丝·雷纳);以及贝克特晚期戏剧中的视野(Stanton B. Garner Jr.)。3与此同时,菲利普·扎里利开始了他对跨文化表演现象学长达数十年的探索。4

在过去十年左右的时间里,第二波戏剧现象学在表演哲学和表演作为研究的新兴领域内和旁边蓬勃发展。5粗略地说,出现了两种菌株。第一个追求关于审美经验的普遍真理,并支持古典现象学的方法论和/或目标,尽管有争议(保罗·利科巧妙地将现象学定义为“胡塞尔工作和由此产生的异端的总和”)。6正如斯图尔特·格兰特 (Stuart Grant) 有效地构建了这种方法,“[p] 现象学声称可以访问适用于所有人类的认知、感知、主体间性和存在的基本先验水平。” 7一些思想家与最近的认知神经科学结盟,这有望验证或至少补充现象学的见解(从而颠倒胡塞尔的[End Page 390]最初的论点,即科学需要现象学,一门科学的科学,以巩固其自身摇摇欲坠的形而上学假设)。8

古典现象学作为一种哲学传统,因条顿人默默无闻而闻名,也因白人男性本质主义和否认差异而受到指责。海德格尔变成了纳粹,背叛了他的老师胡塞尔,这对现象学的声誉没有任何好处。当代戏剧现象学的第二流派优先考虑历史和/或文化边缘化的经验,以及更个人的阐释模式,如自我民族志和表演写作。这个阵营对跨文化的人类真理和先验的知觉结构持怀疑态度,与批判现象学重叠:这是一场广泛的运动,来自女权主义、批判种族、残疾、酷儿和跨性别理论。9在实践中,许多学者都涉足这两个阵营。早在 2001 年,加纳就观察到戏剧现象学一直是“一种混合的、对话式的研究,与胡塞尔起源的‘纯粹’或超验现象学截然不同。” 10

这里考虑的四本书涵盖了强硬派古典主义和主观实验主义之间的全部范围。作为戏剧制作人的入门教科书,丹尼尔·约翰斯顿(Daniel Johnston)引人入胜且轻松自如的《戏剧与现象学:手动哲学》倾向于后者,尽管将其自己动手的教学计划置于传统主义的概念框架内。约翰斯顿接手海德格尔对人类此在的研究,存在作为问题出现的生物。对于约翰斯顿来说,现象学认为“知道不是人类体验世界的主要方式”(103);从形而上学中解放出来,海德格尔的“手工哲学”(这个短语来自萨摩萨塔的卢锡安)让我们回到我们在当下找到的事物。作为一种实践哲学,戏剧将aletheia(真理)举例说明为过程或Ereignis(“事件”):不是某个舞台外世界的再现,而是一个将海德格尔存在本身带入视野的过程。现象学提供[End Page 391]学生演员(和其他人)对他们自己的...

更新日期:2022-09-24
down
wechat
bug