Both my theoretical framework of performative research and my methodology of
performative inquiry are founded around the concepts of performative and performativity.
The discussions around my theoretical framework and methodology are discussed in chapter three. However, in this section, I shed light on foundational understandings of performative and performativity, while also discussing some applications of this concept in research.
2.3.1 PERSPECTIVES ON THE CONCEPT OF PERFORMATIVE
Austin (1962) discusses the philosophical categorization of different utterances, while at the same time, through challenging the existing categories devises a new category called
performatives. Austin’s work is viewed by many as the introduction and use of the term
“performative” (Barad, 2003; Dahl, 2019; Hall, 2000). Austin (1962) establishes
performative utterances as utterances which do not describe, report or constate anything; they are neither true nor false; and the uttering is the doing of an action. Austin (1962) also gives an example of this when he says that to say “I do” as either a bride or groom at a wedding is a performative utterance, to say “I do” are when words are performing an action. Kira Hall (2000) in reflection on Austin’s work takes such ideas further explaining that “the
performative as a new category of utterance that has no truth value since it does not describe the world, but acts upon it—a way of "doing things with words” (p. 184). This further development from Hall of describing the performative utterances as acting upon the world resonated with my research.
Austin’s (1962) creation of the linguistic understanding of the adjective ‘performative’
influences other research to look into how they might embrace this topics. For example, as discussed previously in the definition of terms section (1.2), Fels’ investigation into the etymology of performance gave new meaning to both performance and performative. The new meaning encourages looking at performance in terms of duality –through form or through the destruction of form we come to action. In light of this finding Fels (1999)
(3.1.1). Performance reflects the ideas and concepts behind both performative research and performative inquiry. Fels’ (n.d.) views performance as an action site for learning and in this space lies the concepts of knowing, doing, being, creating, undoing, and not knowing. The performance of my teaching allowed me the action site to learn, as it allowed for the space in which I could be, observe, create, and un-know. To reflect over my data with performative reflection offers up new opportunities for new ways of knowing and understanding to take shape through the micro-moments I have an action on, as well as their action on me
simultaneously. Fels’ (n.d.) dissection of the word performance opens up the ideas of fluidity, ephemerality, change, possibility and transformation which I feel gives my understanding of performative new meaning.
2.3.2 PERFORMATIVITY TWO WAYS
While the development of the adjective and concept of performative starts closer to the ideas around performance and linguistics, the other direction uses the concept of performance as an evaluation of doing. Consequently, within the concept of performativity there are two
different directions which the research takes. The first direction is described by Kirsten Locke (2015) when she states, “Simply put, performativity is the quest for efficiency: the very best input/output equation” (Locke, 2015, p. 248). The first interpretation comes from Locke (2015), which in my opinion focuses on the capitalistic commoditization of the word performance. It refers to an evaluation of doing, instead of the act of doing. It reduces doing/performing to a commodity that is evaluated for its efficiency. This interpretation of performativity does not resonate with my practice, but at the same time is important to discuss in helping to further focus my understanding through what I do not see it as.
The second approach to research which resonates with my research in terms of performative and performativity is embodied through Barad’s (2003) lens of intra-activity when she says
“All bodies, not merely “human” bodies, come to matter through the world’s iterative intra-activity—its performativity” (Barad, 2003, p. 823). This second approach to research comes from Barad’s (2003) posthumanist elaboration on the term performativity. Barad’s (2003) discussion is elaborate and includes multiple philosophical discussions around the elements within performativity that define it. I chose the quote above for its concise view, as well as how it reminds me that performativity and performative do not necessarily only belong to human beings. To further elaborate on Barad’s quote, I diffract it through Fels’ (2019)
discussion of how an empty chair can create meaning in an act of being. An empty chair is placed in the room and Fels asks her students “What do you see?”, they respond with a variety of stories, thoughts, and interpretations (Fels, 2019). The empty chair performs on us, whether we want it to or not, there is a story, a narrative waiting there to intra-act with us.
This, for me, is performative and evokes the ideas behind Barad’s (2003) posthumanist elaboration of performativity through intra-activity. These two perspectives of performativity appear to be on opposite ends of a spectrum, which is what made it difficult for me to find research that directly discusses performative.
2.3.3 PERFORMATIVE RESEARCH AND ARTS EDUCATION
The research I engaged with on the topic of performative and performativity was mostly found to help define the two terms. I had a difficult time finding work that directly explored the concept and idea of performative in education. Most of the literature I found was focused on how to embrace performative in terms of a theoretical framework, research methods, methodologies and approaches, which is discussed further in chapter three. However, I was able to find a few examples of how people were looking into the performative within the context of education.
This first example I offer focuses on how to use a performative arts pedagogy to encourage understanding of and transformation through failure (McKinnon & Lowry, 2012). Jocelyn McKinnon and Sean Lowry (2012) are art teachers and researchers at the University of Newcastle in Australia, and their teaching focuses on “facilitating a holistic educational experience, in which students might also imagine their own ethical, philosophical, spiritual and political futures” (p. 47). This holistic education experience focuses on the use self-reflexive analysis to identify potential shortcomings to encourage experimentation and risk taking (McKinnon & Lowry, 2012). I found this research fascinating and also helpful when analysing my own teaching. I realized that times when students failed, were actually
moments of great learning. The ability to take a risk is, in my opinion, an essential part of the creative process and with risk so does failure have an opportunity. It is how we embrace and reflect over failure is where learning takes place.
Another example of exisiting literature that pertains to my research is Mary Ryan’s (2012) research into how reflective practice should take a multimodal approach to reflection and
include on only discursive and textural reflections, but also performative reflections. Ryan (2012) looks into how in high education, there is a need for more ways to communicate a reflection that also involves performative expression. Performative reflection from visual arts perspective, in Ryan’s (2012) opinion, are both expressive and interpretive seeking not only to portray knowledge, but also invite multiple responses. This view on how reflective practice can be performative is relevant to my research, in that as a graphic designer, I use diagrams to both analyze and reflect over my practice as the teacher. In the section, give more discussion around the reflective practice aspect of my research.