The Anthropology of Theater and Spectacle

Author(s): William O. Beeman

Source: Annual Review of Anthropology , 1993, Vol. 22 (1993), pp. 369-393
Published by: Annual Reviews

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/2155853

REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/2155853?seq=1&cid=pdf-
reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

Annual Reviews is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Annual
Review of Anthropology

This content downloaded from

144.82.8.239 on Thu, 21 Oct 2021 20:49:39 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 1993. 22:369-93
Copyright ? 1993 by Annual Reviews Inc. All rights reserved

THE ANTHROPOLOGY OF THEATER

AND SPECTACLE

William 0. Beeman

Department of Anthropology, Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island 02912

KEY WORDS: performance, cultural anthropology, folklore, linguistics, cultural meaning

INTRODUCTION: THE STUDY OF THEATER AND

SPECTACLE

In this essay I explore studies of theater and spectacle as distinct cultural

institutions. Several kinds of cultural activity closely related to this topic have
extensive literatures of their own, but I do not treat them here. These include
play and games, sports and contests, verbal art and poetry, and dance and
music outside the context of theater and spectacle.
The distinction is arbitrary. The boundary between theater and spectacle
and many other forms of enactment is difficult to determine. Theatrical activ-
ity is a component of many performance genres, and vice versa. Here I attempt
to elucidate the specifically theatrical aspect of human life. I have not limited
myself to works written by anthropologists. Indeed, I hope to excite anthropol-
ogists with an awareness of the work done in other fields.
This essay treats 1. the study of performance in anthropology and related
disciplines, 2. the institutions of theater and spectacle, 3. specific genres of
theater and spectacle, and 4. the creation of cultural meaning within frame-
works of theater and spectacle.

0084-6570/93/1015-0369$05.00 369

This content downloaded from

144.82.8.239 on Thu, 21 Oct 2021 20:49:39 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
370 BEEMAN

THE STUDY OF PERFORMANCE IN ANTHROPOLOGY

Historical and Theoretical Background

During the past two decades the social sciences and humanities have seen an
exciting intellectual development: a "breakthrough into performance," to
quote the title of an influential essay by Hymes (137). The "breakthrough" is a
realization among researchers in humanistic disciplines that active perfor-
mance, undertaken in real time in the presence of a body of designated observ-
ers, contributes essentially to what cultural materials mean, and therefore
affects interpretation of those materials.
Sociocultural anthropologists, anthropological linguists, and folklorists
have studied performance in order to gain insight into more traditional subject
matter. Thus what is loosely termed "performance theory" has been applied to
ritual by researchers such as Turner (219-225), Kapferer (144), and Frisbie
(107); to interaction structures in language by, among others, Beeman (41),
Briggs (62), Duranti (83, 84), Irvine (140), Kuipers (156), Sherzer (204, 205),
Tyler (226), and Urban (227); and to the structure of enactment in folkloric
narrative genres, often termed "verbal art," by folklorists such as Bauman
(28-30), Ben-Amos & Goldstein (47), and Kirshenblatt-Gimblett (152). Stud-
ies of humor often require performative treatment, as seen in studies by Apte
(10) and Willeford (233).
Anthropologists have studied performance largely for what it can show
about other human institutions such as religion, political life, gender relations,
and ethnic identity. Less study has been devoted to performance per se: its
structure, its cultural meaning apart from other institutions, the conditions
under which it occurs, and its place within broad patterns of community life.
This neglect is particularly noticeable with respect to performative activities
designed specifically to "entertain": theater and spectacle. This is surprising
because theater and spectacle are universal human institutions, to which most
societies devote much time and energy.
In anthropology, the earliest theoretically influential work on performance
was carried out by Bateson and Mead in Bali. Their film, Trance and Dance in
Bali (27), and the accompanying monographs by Jane Belo (44-46) laid the
foundations for considering traditional performance a legitimate field of study.
Bateson's later work on the New Guinean ritual performance, Naven (25), and
on the nature of play and schizophrenia (24, 26) added an important set of
intellectual tools to the study of performance, demonstrating that a culturally
conditioned cognitive state frames and orients human action.
Other early anthropological works emphasizing indigenous theater tradi-
tions include a remarkable study of the Shi'a Muslim ta'ziyeh passion drama
in Azerbaijan by Ivar Lassy, a student of Edward Westermarck (160), and
studies of Native American theater traditions by Frank Speck (Cherokee)

This content downloaded from

144.82.8.239 on Thu, 21 Oct 2021 20:49:39 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 THEATER AND SPECTACLE 371

(210), R. B. Spicer (Yaqui) (211), and Julian Steward (Ute) (212). These
studies, while interesting, did not found a tradition of theater studies in anthro-
pology.
The elaborate performance traditions of Asia were especially suggestive for
anthropologists in the post World War II period. Milton Singer's study When a
Great Tradition Modernizes (207) introduced the notion of "cultural perfor-
mance" as an institution embodying central symbolic aspects of a cultural
tradition.
Victor Turner, in his early works on Ndembu ritual (221, 222), included a
great deal of performance material in developing the concepts of liminality and
reversal in human action. These ideas were picked up by students of theatrical-
ity including Beeman (32, 33, 35-37), Davis (72, 73), and Schechner (196-
199). In his 1974 analysis of historical and social events such as revolutions
and social disturbances (221, 223-225), Turner extended his concept of the
"social drama" to include the structures of ritual. Turner's work, except for his
specific analysis of Ndembu ritual, was largely programmatic and inspira-
tional. He mentored students of performance but did not himself carry out
extensive direct studies of performance traditions.
Geertz attempted to demonstrate the interrelationship between performance
and other general dimensions of culture such as religion, politics, and norma-
tive modes of personal conduct in his studies of Balinese life. However, Geertz
rarely dealt with performance forms in detail, preferring to discuss them in
general terms (114, 115). His most celebrated study of a cultural performance
was not of a staged performance but of a sporting event, the Balinese cockfight
(113). In a more recent study, Negara, he discusses the inherent theatricality of
the political construction of the Balinese state (116). Once again he deals not
with the structures of specific performances but with the generalized structure
of the performance aesthetic.
Over the past 10 years folklorists have emphasized the performative, as
opposed to the textual, aspects of folkloric materials. Dell Hymes's seminal
essay (137), which suggests that the meaning of folkloric material inheres in
its performance, was an important portent of this new direction. Richard
Bauman has been a leader in developing a careful model of oral literature as
communication. In this model he analyzes performance events as a means of
identifying the fusion of text and context (28-3 1).
Sociolinguistics has experienced its own "breakthrough into performance."
Here again, Hymes has been a leader. In his Foundations in Sociolinguistics
(138), he established the model for the study of the performative aspect of
language use. He applied this model in his studies of ethnopoetics (139). Paul
Friedrich's work has continually emphasized the use of performative language
to achieve concrete social and aesthetic ends. In his book The Language
Parallax (106) he posits a "poetic imagination" lying at the base of all linguis-

This content downloaded from

144.82.8.239 on Thu, 21 Oct 2021 20:49:39 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 372 BEEMAN

tic function. Michael Silverstein has interjected the pragmatism of Peirce and
Austin into a theory suggesting that language accomplishes concrete aims
through its performative dimensions (206). The study of metaphor and meta-
phoric processes by researchers such as Fernandez (100) has likewise aided
researchers in understanding the construction of symbolic representation in
performance genres. The strength of these conceptions of language is under-
scored by observational studies in sociolinguistics. Schegloff (200, 201),
Sherzer (204, 205), Tyler (226), and Urban (227), among others, demonstrate
that if speakers are to achieve their aims they must use performative skills
within the context of discourse.
Richard Schechner has borrowed heavily from both Gregory Bateson and
Victor Turner to develop a series of approaches to the study of both traditional
and modern theatricality. With the trained eye of the director he has analyzed
the ritual and cognitive underpinnings of theatrical performance in detail.
Schechner has shown that to study performance a researcher must study far
more than just the event that appears before an audience. He has drawn
attention to the long process of preparation and rehearsal that has its own
socially determined structure. He has also developed several approaches for
investigating the intrinsic relationship between performance reality and the
events of the real world in which performance is enacted.
He has, moreover, continually treated the stage as a laboratory of perfor-
mance, experimenting with various performance elements to observe the ef-
fects on both performers and audience. One of the most consistent techniques
he has used in his work is the incorporation of elements of folk performance
into his Western, avant-garde theatrical productions (193-195). His produc-
tion of Brecht's Mother Courage, for example, incorporated such features of
Indian folk performance as the consumption of food, actors' remaining in full
view of the audience when offstage, and lengthy performance. The production
was later staged in villages in India with some success (196:104). Savran's
study of Schechner's performing group documents the legacy of his experi-
mentation (192).
Schechner pioneered in expanding the scope of theater analysis, but he has
not been alone. A number of other theater scholars have aimed to study the
entire range of performance phenomena. Zarilli's review of the field of perfor-
mance studies (240, 241) draws on Schechner, and on the work of Turner,
MacAloon (168), and Handelman (127). Other scholars have also tried to
expand theater research to include semiotic dimensions (4, 56, 88, 202), and
sociological contextualization of performance (17, 49, 63, 72, 86, 87, 122,
185, 186). Several researchers have sought the origins of theater in cultural
terms. Theodore Gaster has attempted to trace modern theater to ancient Mid-
dle Eastern roots (1 12a). One of the most anthropologically sensitive works is
Ur-Drama by E. T. Kirby (151).

This content downloaded from

144.82.8.239 on Thu, 21 Oct 2021 20:49:39 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 THEATER AND SPECTACLE 373

Considerably less work has been done to refine the notion of spectacle.
MacAloon (167, 168) and Handelman (126-128) have done much of the
modem research on the anthropology of public events and spectacles, although
a body of literature on this topic is growing (77, 87, 105, 134, 165).
Theoretical inspiration for anthropological study of performance has come
from only a few primary sources. Such sources on the structure of ritual-
often used as an analogy for performance events-have been mentioned
above, particularly in conjunction with Turner's work. Michail Bakhtin's work
(19, 19a,b) has consistently inspired many students of performance-particu-
larly his views on the transforming relationship between art and the mundane
world. Kenneth Burke (62a,b,c) has likewise stimulated performance theory,
especially as his views have been filtered through the work of Hymes and
Goffman. Burke's "dramatistic" view of human existence emphasizes the
human use of symbolic materials in communication and the human intent to
affect others through symbolic action. Burke makes a major distinction be-
tween motion and action in human life. Things move, but human beings act,
and it is only through human motivated action that meaningful symbolic
transformation of reality can occur. Thus a rock rolling down a mountain
embodies no intrinsic symbolic transformation of reality. If someone throws
the rock through the window of a house, then this becomes a symbolic act that
will require interpretation and will have consequences both for the rock
thrower, and for the persons into whose house the rock was thrown (150).
Motivated symbolic action of this sort is the foundation on which theatrical
meaning rests.
Alfred Lord (166) broadened the attention of folklorists from exclusive
focus on text to a study of verbal art as enacted in public. Pierre Bourdieux's
work on the concrete effects of language use in social life (57) has also
influenced this area. John Blacking (53) has suggested that the basis for all
drama lies in the human physical impulse to mark rhythm through dance.
Erving Goffman's numerous studies of theatrical aspects of social life
(119-121) have been expanded by others to encompass the study of perfor-
mance events. A seminal concept in Goffman's work is the psychological
"frame" imposed by humans on social activity. Actions within such a frame
are governed by rules of behavior separate from those governing the world of
everyday action in which they are embedded. The frame concept is borrowed
from Bateson (24) but is elaborated in much of Goffman's work (121). Stu-
dents of performance, notably Schechner and Turner, have used the notion of
frames to describe the relationship between performance events and the "nor-
mal" world. Garfinkel's ethnomethodological studies (109) of the "routine
grounds of everyday behavior" have enabled extensive investigation of theatri-
cal convention. The work of Mihalyi Csikszentmihalyi (69a) has also attracted
the attention of performance scholars. He has pioneered investigation of the

This content downloaded from

144.82.8.239 on Thu, 21 Oct 2021 20:49:39 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
374 BEEMAN

phenomenon of "flow." For Csikszentmihalyi, flow denotes the cognitive state

attained when total engagement with an activity is achieved, such that con-
sciousness of the physical body is lost. Good examples of flow are the states of
bodily unawareness attained when driving a car, typing, or playing a musical
instrument. Flow has been used to describe the transformative state that excel-
lent performers achieve during the course of performance (39, 40, 196-198,
199:247).

The Study of Performance Traditions in Specific Cultures

Singer's influential early study of cultural performance focused on India, but

few anthropologists have answered Singer's call for additional studies in In-
dian and Sri Lankan theater. A few anthropologists have done fieldwork in
South Asia centering on theatrical traditions. Studies include Beeman's com-
parison of film and performance traditions (34), Kapferer's classic study of Sri
Lankan thovil (144-146), Ostor's analysis of Bengali ritual performance
(177), and Reed's study of the ritual and political significance of Kandyan
dance in Sri Lanka (186a).
However, the bulk of research on South Asian theater has been undertaken
by drama scholars and ethnomusicologists. The work of some of these schol-
ars has drawn on anthropological theory and methodology. These include
Ashton's study of Yaksagana (12), Awasthi's careful analysis of the cultural
underpinnings of Indian performance traditions (14-16), Emigh's excellent
work on masked drama (89, 92, 93), Erdman's study of patronage and social
support for Rajasthani performance (95), Hansen's study of nautunki (129),
Schechner's (198) and Hess' (133) work on the ramlila, and Zarilli's definini-
tive studies of kathakali and other South Indian performance forms (237-243).
Many other theater studies are either historical or largely descriptive in nature.
Nevertheless, useful overall surveys of Indian and Ceylonese theater have
been undertaken by De Zoete (74, 75), De Zoete & Spies (76), Gargi (110,
111), Mathur (172), Parmar (179), and Vatsyayan (229, 230). Studies of spe-
cific traditions include Hawley's (131) and Hein's (132) work on raslila,
Jones' (143) on kathakali, and Marglin's (171) on Puri ritual drama.
Mukhopadhyay (173, 174), Vatuk (231), and Wade (232) have prepared col-
lections of smaller studies on a variety of traditional drama and narrative
traditions.
Following in the tradition of Bateson and Mead, many anthropologists of
theater and spectacle have looked at Southeast Asia-particularly Indonesia.
Aside from the work of Geertz (113-116) cited above, anthropological de-
scriptions of performance forms in Indonesia are provided by Peacock (181-
183) and Keeler (147), who detail the performance forms of ludruk and
wayang kulit. Lansing (159) has provided a study of institutional support for
Balinese theatrical performance. Anthropologically important work has also

This content downloaded from

144.82.8.239 on Thu, 21 Oct 2021 20:49:39 1976 12:34:56 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 THEATER AND SPECTACLE 375

been carried out by theater scholars and ethnomusicologists. A lot of attention

has been devoted to dance drama in Indonesia. Bandem & deBoer (20) provide
an important overview of the changing field of dance. Foley (103, 104) like-
wise investigates the practice of dance drama from the standpoint of the
performer, emphasizing particularly the role of trance. In addition to Keeler' s
work (147), Clara van Groenendael (67, 68) has also dealt extensively with the
art of shadow puppetry. Shadow puppetry in Malaysia is examined by
Sweeney (103, 104). Emigh (89-91, 94) studies a wide variety of masked
traditions in the region. Brandon (60) provides an invaluable broad survey of
literature on dance and drama in the region.
Anthropological studies of performance traditions in other areas of the
world have been less extensive. Japan, with its rich performing arts traditions,
has rewarded study by theater scholars, but little work has been done by
anthropologists. Research being done in Japan centers largely on the classical
traditions of noh and kabuki. There is a vast literature on both traditions.
Bowers general survey of Japanese theater (58) focuses on these two forms.
Bethe & Brazell (50) have come the closest to an ethnographic treatment of
noh, and Renondeau (187) has dealt with Buddhist elements in this art form.
Ernst (96) and Leiter (162) have carried out somewhat historical and literary-
based studies of kabuki. Hoff (135) presents a masterful study of shrine-based
folk dance-drama (kagura and related forms). Araki's historical study of medi-
eval ballad-drama (kowaka) (10a) provides important insights for the study of
today's theater. Yamaguchi (234) examines the comparative role of the clown
in Japan and in other cultural traditions. Yamamoto (236) provides an account
of a festival in Northeast Japan that includes dance-drama elements. Beeman
examines the contemporary theater director Tadashi Suzuki and his ties with
traditional theater forms (39, 40). Hsieh has written an outstanding ethno-
graphic study on the little-known Taiwanese hand-puppet tradition (136a), and
Mackerras (169) offers one of the few comprehensive studies of Chinese
theater traditions that takes a broad view of theater in its cultural context.
Middle Eastern theater traditions have been the focus of a number of
anthropologically informed studies. Beeman has provided an overview of the
entire region (42). Gaster has attempted to show the role of drama in ancient
Mesopotamia (1 12a). Metin And has written several studies of the theatrical
traditions of Turkey including karagoz, the Turkish shadow-puppet theater;
and orta-oyunu, a comic improvisatory tradition (5-9). Iranian traditional
theater has been the focus of several surveys by Beza'i (51), Jannati-Ata'i
(141), and Rezvani (188). Traditional theater in Iran is seen in two primary
forms. The first form is ta'ziyeh, a passion drama focusing on the martyrdom
of Imam Hosein, grandson of the prophet Mohammed and fourth leader of
Shi'a Muslims. Beeman (33, 35, 37, 38, 43), Chelkowski (66), Ghaffari (117),
and Lassy (160) have presented analyses of various aspects of this form. The

This content downloaded from

144.82.8.239 on Thu, 21 Oct 2021 20:49:39 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 376 BEEMAN

second form is a comic improvisatory form known by various names, but oft
referred to as ru-hozi. In addition to treatments in the broad surveys mentioned
above, this form has been specifically studied by Beeman (32, 36, 40-42) and
Gafary (108). Baghban (18a) has investigated folk theater in the Herat region
of Afghanistan. An overall review of Arab theater has been undertaken by
Al-Khozai (la) and Landau (158a). Slyomovics (208, 209) has dealt with
traditional Egyptian Arab performance genres, particularly those performed by
women.
Other world areas have been studied more sparsely. In Africa, Drewal and
Drewal (81) have studied the role of women in West African performing art.
Kennedy (148) has written a general monograph dealing with drama through-
out the continent. Kisliuk (154, 155) examines the role of dance and perfor-
mance in the lives of Pygmies. Fabian (97) has written a classic work about the
creation and performance of a politically motivated drama by the Luba people
of Shaba province in Zaire. General surveys of African theater materials are
provided by East (87a) and Fiebach (lOGa). Research in Spain, Latin America,
and the Caribbean has covered a variety of topics. In Mexico, Brandes (59) has
examined festivals and their social and political context; Briggs (62) and
Urban (227) have dealt with the performative dynamics of verbal art and
discourse, and Oettinger (176) has treated masks and masked performance.
Taussig has analyzed the concept of the devil as it pervades such Latin Ameri-
can festivals as the diablada found in many Andean countries. Crawford (69),
Flores (102), and Johnson (142) have written about the Spanish language
pastoral drama, called pastorella in Mexico and the American Southwest.
Nunley & Bettelheim (175) and Yamaguchi & Naito (235) have explored the
variety of Caribbean festivals and festival arts. DaMatta (70, 71, 71a) has
written definitive studies of the Brazilian Carnival in the context of Brazilian
society.
Anthropologists writing on the performance traditions of native peoples of
the Americas have largely emphasized ritual traditions. Frisbie (107) has ed-
ited an admirable collection of studies on a wide variety of such ritual tradi-
tions. Babcock (18), Grimes (124), Kurath (157), Kurath & Garcia (158),
Spicer (211), and Tedlock (217a) have written on drama and ritual in the
Southwestern Pueblo Native American tribes. Lawrence (161) has analyzed
the rodeo from both Euro-American and Native American perspectives. Stew-
ard (212) has described a Ute bear ceremony with definite dramatic overtones.
Sherzer (204) has dealt with performative aspects of narrative among the Kuna
Indians of the San Blas Islands of Panama.
Surprisingly little work on Western performance traditions has been under-
taken by anthropologists. Notable exceptions are studies of aspects of contem-
porary theater and their relevance for understanding culture by Adler (1),
Alland (2), Beeman (37, 39, 40), Dening (79), Duranti & Brenneis (85),

This content downloaded from

144.82.8.239 on Thu, 21 Oct 2021 20:49:39 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 THEATER AND SPECTACLE 377

Garner & Tumbull (112), Giacce (118), McClard (172a), Peterson (184),
Swiderski (215), and Titon (217b). Mumming traditions (characterized by the
use of masks), particularly those of Newfoundland, stand apart as having a
unique attraction for anthropological fieldwork. Important studies have been
carried out by Halpert & Story (125), Handelman (126), Robertson (190),
Sider (205a), and Szwed (216). Glassie (1 18a) has written on Irish mumming,
in particular.
Other social historians, folklorists and sociologists have made serious at-
tempts to analyze drama and theater from a theoretical standpoint as a broadly
conceived Western social institution. These include Armstrong (11), Blau
(54a), Burns (63), Davis (72,73), Deldime (78), Des Bouvrie (80), Duvignaud
(86, 87), Goodland (122), Little (165), McNamara (172b), and Manning (170).
Wilmeth (233a,b) has provided a set of excellent bibliographic sources for the
study of theatrical traditions throughout North America.
That theater scholars, by contrast, have applied anthropological methods
and concepts to the study of Western performance forms can be seen in the
writings of Alter (4), Aston & Savona (13), Bab (17), Barba (21-23), Beneix
(48), Bennett (49), Borie (55), Bouissac (56), Canziani (64), Carlson (65),
Elam (88), Fischer-Lichte (101), Foster (105), Harrison-Pepper (130), Hornby
(136), Kisliuk (153), Lesnick (163), Pavis (180), Phelan (185), Read (186),
Rickner (189), Savran (192), Schechner (193-198), Schechner & Appel (199),
Schmid & van Kesteren (202), Senelick (203), and Tomasio (218).
Western opera is a theater form with strong affinities to the music-theater
performance forms of Asia. Modern studies of Western opera [e.g. Helfgot &
Beeman (132a), Kerman (149), Lindenberger (164), Robinson (191), and
Smith (209a)], although not carried out primarily by anthropologists, investi-
gate the performance effects of combined song and acting. Investigation of the
special conventions of this theatrical form helps to elucidate performance in
other areas of human life. Opera is a highly "marked" form of theater. Marked-
ness in linguistics refers to categories of language or cultural material that are
stylistically differentiated from the broad class of phenomena to which they
belong. They are generally rarer in appearance, and cannot be considered
representative of a whole genre. Like other highly stylized traditions of perfor-
mance, such as Japanese kabuki, or Indian kathakali, opera draws attention not
only to the dramatic meanings it conveys, but also to itself as a theatrical form.
Because of this marked quality, anything occurring in opera is understood to
be theatrical. Thus opera serves as a repository for many of the symbolic
conventions that the Western public recognizes as specifically belonging to
theatrical expression. As a result, opera is also the bane of theatrical innovators
who wish to alter or eliminate the standard conventions of formal theater.

This content downloaded from

144.82.8.239 on Thu, 21 Oct 2021 20:49:39 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
378 BEEMAN

THE INSTITUTIONS OF THEATER AND SPECTACLE

The Unique Qualities of Theater

What fundamentally distinguishes theatrical activity from other kinds of per-

formance activity? Bauman has made several general theoretical statements
about the nature of performance. In one seminal article (29a) he includes
theater within Singer's general rubric "cultural performance" (207). Cultural
performances "tend to be the most prominent performance contexts within a
community" (29a:285). They are scheduled, temporally bounded, spacially
bounded, and programmed; they are coordinated public occasions "open to
view by an audience and to collective participations" (p. 285). Owing largely
to their reflexive nature they are heightened occasions for the community.
Although these observations situate theater and spectacle within a general
class of performance activities, differentiating them from the general spectrum
of performance is still problematic.
The performance literature commonly distinguishes ritual activity from
theatrical activity. Here Schechner's work is of paramount importance. Ac-
cording to Schechner, the difference between ritual and theater cannot be
stated in essentialist terms. "Whether one calls a specific performance 'ritual'
or 'theater'," he writes, "depends mostly on context and function. A perfor-
mance is called theater or ritual because of where it is performed, by whom
and under what circumstances" (197:120). Table 1 shows Schechner's identifi-
cation of the principal differences between the two forms.
Victor Turner has written two books exploring the relationship between
ritual and theatrical genres, From Ritual to Theatre and Back (224) and The
Anthropology of Performance (225). In these he builds on his earlier influen-
tial work Dramas, Fields and Metaphors (221). Turner separates theater,

Table 1 Ritual and theater compared (after 197:120)

EFFICACY ENTERTAINMENT

Ritual Theater

results fun

link to an absent Other only for those here

symbolic time emphasis now

performer posessed, in trance performer knows what s/he's doing

audience participates audience watches

audience believes audience appreciates

criticism discouraged criticism flourishes

collective creativity individual creativity

This content downloaded from

144.82.8.239 on Thu, 21 Oct 2021 20:49:39 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 THEATER AND SPECTACLE 379

ritual, and performative processes in public life. Revolutions, public demon-

strations, campaigns, strikes, and other forms of participatory public action all
have performative dimensions. Moreover, they share certain features with the
fundamental ritual process explicated by Van Gennep (228) and elaborated in
Turner's earlier books (219, 220). Such "social dramas" involve a break with
the "normal" structures of ongoing life, the entrance of groups of individuals
into liminal transitory states, and the reincorporation of the liminalized indi-
viduals into a reconstituted social order. The efficacy/entertainment distinction
is a way of separating ritual from theater, but other performance genres also
fall under the general functional rubric of entertainment. Both Schechner and
Turner find two other crucial features in theater/spectacle that are not neces-
sary in other forms of performance activity (cf 197:12). First, for theater and
spectacle an observer/evaluator audience (as opposed to a participatory audi-
ence) is always present. Theatrical forms have no purpose without the audi-
ence. This is not true for rituals, sports, play activities, games, or face-to-face
verbal interaction, despite their theatrical qualities.
Second, theater and spectacle focus principally on symbolic reality. In
theater, the performers represent themselves in roles disjunct from their lives
outside the performance. The presentational frame for theatrical performance
is also disjunct from even the immediate context of the occasion for the
performance. Theatrical performance generally makes this separation through
a series of conventions such as the raising or lowering of a curtain, changes in
lighting levels, or the use of music to announce the beginning or end of a
performance. Although experimental and avant-garde theatrical forms may
play with the boundaries of separation between observer and performer, in
general, theater maintains a framed separation between the "show" and exter-
nal reality throughout the duration of the performance. In spectacle, perform-
ers present themselves as representative of a larger group or a larger reality.
Symbolic reality serves to differentiate theater and spectacle from performance
genres such as public speaking (e.g. lectures, sermons), exhibitions, and dem-
onstrations.
The use of three descriptive dimensions-efficacy vs entertainment in in-
tent, participation vs observation in the audience's role, and symbolic repre-
sentation vs literal self-presentation in the performers' role-thus permits a
rough distinction between theater and spectacle, on the one hand, and other
performance forms, on the other. For example, one form of performance that
does not qualify as theatrical are the kinds of performance genres Schechner
calls "actuals" (197). These are events such as feats of daring or athletic
competitions that are viewed by an audience entirely for their own sake. The
audience, in an observer's role, is entertained, but the performers do not
engage in symbolic representation in their roles. They are likewise evaluated
for their ability to accomplish specific tasks during the performance, rather

This content downloaded from

144.82.8.239 on Thu, 21 Oct 2021 20:49:39 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 380 BEEMAN

than on their overall presentation. For example, a high-jumper may have bad
form, but s/he will be considered a success if s/he jumps higher than other
contestants. Likewise, although a tight-rope walker may be costumed as an
historical figure, the audience remains interested not in realistic portrayal of
this character but in the performer's ability to negotiate the tight-rope.
Despite the characterizing features discussed above, the distinction between
theater and spectacle and other performance genres in a given case may be
blurry. A conversationalist or public speaker may mimic someone not present
during a narrative. A ritual occasion may contain performative events designed
primarily for entertainment, rather than for efficacy. A sports event may in-
clude theater or spectacle (such as a half-time show at a football game). In all
of these examples, however, the theatrical aspect or portion is a secondary
enhancement of the primary nontheatrical purpose for which participants are
gathered.

Spectacle

Spectacle is further differentiated from theater in terms of the expectations

of the audience. Like theater, spectacle must have an audience; but unlike
theater, according to MacAloon, "Spectacles give primacy to visual sensory
and symbolic codes; they are things to be seen. Hence we refer to circuses as
'spectacles,' but not orchestral performances" (167:243). As is the case with
theater, a spectator may choose to attend a spectacle; attendance at a ritual may
be considered a cultural duty. MacAloon further points out that spectacles
must be "of a certain size and grandeur" (167:243).
Spectacle is a public display of a society's central meaningful elements.
Parades, festivals, and other such events occur at regular intervals and are
frequently deeply meaningful for a society. The meaningfulness of a spectacle
is usually proportionate to the degree to which the elements displayed to the
public seem to represent key elements in the public's cultural and emotional
life. It is almost as if the mere event of displaying these symbolic representa-
tive elements in a special framed context is enough to elicit strong positive
emotional responses from the observing public. Handelman terms such actions
"public events," most of which are also spectacles (127). In his study of the
Palio of Siena (128), he demonstrates how such public events, by means of
their structure and enactment, reconstitute the whole community. In essence,
the Palio, a horse race around the town square, allows all quarters of the city
first to differentiate themselves, since each quarter is represented by a horse
and rider, and then to come together in the enactment of the event. Dundes &
Falassi (82) have likewise presented an important analysis of this spectacle.
DaMatta (70, 71) makes a similar claim for Brazilian carnival-that in essence
the carnival tradition is an example of a people reconstituting itself through
spectacle. In his study of the Olympic games (167), MacAloon notes that

This content downloaded from

144.82.8.239 on Thu, 21 Oct 2021 20:49:39 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 THEATER AND SPECTACLE 381

"Insofar as there exists, in the Hegelian-Marxian phrase, a 'world-historical

process,' the Olympics have emerged as its privileged expression and celebra-
tion" (167:242). Anthropologists have been slow to take up the study of
spectacle. Allegri (3), Debord (77), Deldime (78), Duvignaud (86, 87), and
Falassi (98) have all attempted theoretical analyses of the spectacle as a gen-
eral social phenomenon. Among specific studies, Bauman (30) has written
about the symbolic dynamics present in a folklife festival in Washington, and
Gregor (123) has presented a picture of daily life as spectacle in a Brazilian
village. Harrison-Pepper (130) presents an insightful analysis of the street
performances that take place in Washington Square Park in New York City as
representative of the whole surrounding community and its ethos. Kisliuk
(153) analyzes the musical behavior taking place at a bluegrass festival, and
Lawrence's study on rodeo (161), Nunley & Bettelheim's analysis of Carib-
bean festivals (175), and Taussig's treatment of the devil in Andean festivals
(217) have been mentioned above.

GENRES OF THEATER AND SPECTACLE

Theater exists in a variety of forms worldwide. Anthropologists generally

focus on the functions of theater in supporting other cultural institutions such
as religion or politics, rather than concentrating on the various theatrical forms
per se. Nevertheless, significant work has been done for a number of theater
genres. In order to establish rough categories of theater forms, I adopt here a
modified communications analysis of the kind suggested by Jakobson (140a)
and Hymes (138). We can discuss theater genres in terms of four variables: the
media used in presentation, the nature of the performers, the nature of the
content of presentation, and the role of the audience. We can also differentiate
these forms according to the degree to which they are codified. More highly
codified and elaborated forms have generally produced artistic traditions with
widely understood execution standards. Less thoroughly codified traditions
may be largely improvisatory and exhibit great variation in local performance
standards.

Genre Variables

MEDIA

Music-Text-Dance (MTD) theater MTD is the commonest form of theater and

spectacle worldwide. Music, sung or spoken text, and dance are used to advance
a dramatic narrative, or form an integral part of such a narrative. Both elaborate
codified and simpler less codified varieties of this universal theater form abound.
Examples of highly codified varieties include Euro-American opera/music

This content downloaded from

144.82.8.239 on Thu, 21 Oct 2021 20:49:39 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
382 BEEMAN

theater, Japanese kabuki (61, 96, 162), Iranian ta'ziyeh (33, 66, 117, 160), and
Indian kathakali (143, 243). Less thoroughly codified forms include Turkish
orta-oyunu (5-7, 9), Japanese kagura (135), and Mexican pastorella (69, 102,
142)

Dance theater While theater involving only dance and music, with little or no
spoken or sung text, is rarer than MTD theater, it is still fairly widespread.
Euro-American ballet is an example of a highly codified variety. Indian nautunki
(129) and Bolivian diablada (217) are examples of less thoroughly codified
forms.

Textual theater Theater involving only the spoken word, with no music or
dance, is rare on a world scale, even though it is the commonest unmarked form
of theater in the West. Western spoken drama is a highly codified form of this
kind of theater. Storytelling traditions such as Iranian naqqali (32) or the
Rajasthani 'jester" (93) are examples of less thoroughly codified forms.

PERFORMERS

Human actors By far the commonest variety of theater is undertaken by human

performers presenting themselves before an audience. They may be costumed
or in make-up, but they are unmistakably human. Some traditions require that
all the performers be of one gender, one age group, or one social class. In Japan,
for example, women do not appear as actors in noh (50) or kabuki (61, 96, 162)
theater. In Orissa in India the form Radha-prima lila (89) uses only children. In
Gujarat, also in India, performers in bhavai (14-16, 173, 174) are all from a
single performer caste.

Masked theater The use of masks for performers is virtually universal. Their
incidence in theater and spectacle is so widespread that it is reasonable to
categorize them separately. Masks cover the face, a portion of the face, or the
face and other body parts. The mask can also be seen as a special form of
animated object (see below). Indeed, when the mask covers the entire body of
the performer, it has become a full-body puppet. Extremely heavy facial or body
make-up, such as in kathakali (89,229,230,243) dance drama in southern India,
is often seen as a form of nonpermanent mask.

Animated objects The use of animated objects is widespread in theater and

spectacle. The general term "puppet," often applied to these objects, conceals
the enormous variety of objects that people regularly manipulate in perfor-
mance. Shadow puppets are found throughout Eurasia. String puppets come in
all sizes and varieties from life-sized varieties to very small forms (3). Rod

This content downloaded from

144.82.8.239 on Thu, 21 Oct 2021 20:49:39 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 THEATER AND SPECTACLE 383

puppets vary both in size and in the complexity of their manipulation (173, 174).
A complex form, such as used in Japanese bunraku, requires three human
manipulators. Glove puppets fit on the hand and are manipulated by the fingers
of the operator (136a). Ventriloquists' dummies are manipulated directly by the
operator without strings or rods. Full-body puppets are worn by the operator(s),
who manipulate them from within. Animated stage devices are operated by
mechanisms invisible to the audience. In today's theater, these may include
various kinds of film, slide, and video projections. We are just beginning to see
robot devices manipulated by their operators through the use of remote-control
radio.

Mixedforms Masks and animated objects appear along with human perform-
ers in some theater forms. These are most often used to portray supernatural
beings or animals. Of course, ventriloquism requires the human operator and
the dummy to appear together.

CONTENT

Scripted Many theatrical forms are scripted or semi-scripted-that is, material

is performed as an author intended. Scripted theater exists on a continuum with
improvisatory theater (see below). No scripted form-even the most rigidly
codified, such as noh drama or ballet-is performed without some improvisation
on the part of performers.

Unscripted Equally common is the "improvisatory" theatrical form, whose

materials are performed without a formal script. This form exists on a contiuum
with scripted performance. No improvisatory performance ever takes place in
the absence of some previously agreed upon framework for improvisation.

Mixed forms Many forms allow for scripted material to alternate with or
interpenetrate unscripted material. Wayang kulit (67, 68, 103, 147, 213, 214),
Javanese shadow puppet drama, is one of many theater forms in which the formal
scripted narrative that advances the story being presented alternates with comic
interludes of improvisatory material performed by clown figures.

AUDIENCE ROLE As mentioned above, the audience is crucial to theater and

spectacle. It is not always necessary for other forms of performance.
Some genres predicate performance on audience familiarity with the mate-
rial being presented. Although some audience members may not be familiar
with the content of the performance, in these genres the performers assume
prior familiarity and present their material from that perspective (49, 85, 133).

This content downloaded from

144.82.8.239 on Thu, 21 Oct 2021 20:49:39 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
384 BEEMAN

Audience as participant In ritual, the audience is a full participant in the event.

The active contributions of the audience-vocal display, direct action (dance,
movement, eating, entering into trance, etc), and presentation of gifts to deities,
priests, or other participants-are essential to the success of the event.

Audience as witness In some theatrical events, and in most spectacles, the

audience must be present to witness the performed events. Although the audi-
ence might neither participate actively nor evaluate the performance, it must be
present and actively watching for the event to succeed.

Audience as evaluator In many theatrical events the audience is not only a

witness, but also an evaluator of the event. This is most often the case when the
performance is repeated for different audiences. The good opinion of the
audience is indicative of the success of the event. In genres where the audience
is familiar with the material being presented, audience evaluation is predicated
on the degree to which performers are able to meet or exceed a standard of
artistry in performing specific material that has been established by past gener-
ations of expert performers. Examples of these genres include Euro-American
operaandballet(132a, 149,164,191,209), Indian kathakali (89,229,230,243),
Chinese opera (169), and Japanese kabuki (61, 96, 162) and noh (50).
In genres where the audience is unfamiliar with the material being pre-
sented, evaluation is based on a general appreciation of the ability of the
performers to engage and entertain. This appreciation may be based on a
general knowledge of the skills needed to carry out the performance-such as
skill at declamation, acting, acrobatics, comedy, music, or verbal art.

Interaction of Modes

The characteristics discussed above can help us to distinguish a wide variety of

theater genres. For example, the Turkish shadow-puppet form karagoz can be
described as MTD theater using animated objects with nonscripted text involv-
ing the audience as evaluator (5-9). The Rangda-Barong (27, 44-46) ritual
dance drama in Bali can be characterized as dance theater involving a mixture
of human beings and animated objects, performing a mixture of scripted and
unscripted text among an audience of participants. The recitation of a poem at
a ceremonial event such as the investiture of a public official, or an official's
recounting of a culturally significant historical event on a ceremonial occasion
such as a religious holiday might be described as a theater form employing
human actors to perform scripted text before a witnessing audience.

This content downloaded from

144.82.8.239 on Thu, 21 Oct 2021 20:49:39 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 THEATER AND SPECTACLE 385

Social Drama Stage Drama

014ert dramae ,,,est perform,,

?hetorical \WY~ 'Ibp,jc~t social ptO

Figure 1 The interrelationship of social drama and stage drama [after Turner (225a: 17)]

CULTURAL MEANING IN THEATER AND SPECTACLE

Despite a great deal of study of theater and spectacle genres, the ultimate
meaning of this form of activity for human society remains elusive. Several
suggestions have been made by anthropologists based on much of the field-
work cited above.
Dominant theories of the origins of theater posit a religious basis for most
theatrical activity. Most elaborate theatrical activity seems concentrated in
agricultural societies. This has led some researchers (1 12a) to suppose a reli-
gious origin for theater based on celebration of yearly fertility cycles. Kirby,
by contrast, claims that theater arises from shamanism (151).
Turner likewise assumes that much theatrical activity has its ultimate ori-
gins in ritual behavior. Religious ritual serves as a model for social ritual-or
social dramas (221, 223)-which serve in turn to supply drama with thematic
material to present before the public. Turner and Schechner show how such
social dramas and staged dramas are interrelated. Figure 1, familiar to perfor-
mance theorists, diagrams this interrelationship.
Whatever the ultimate meaning of performance, Schechner suggests that it
functions through "restoration of behavior" (196, 197a). Unmediated experi-
ence in the world is taken by the theatrical performer and, after extensive
rehearsal, restored in a theatrical frame for the edification of spectators. The
theatrical experience is meaningful to the degree that it enables the spectator to
feel the force of the original unmediated experience (54:253). For this to occur,

This content downloaded from

144.82.8.239 on Thu, 21 Oct 2021 20:49:39 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
386 BEEMAN

the spectator must collaborate psychologically in the total theatrical event. The
performer tries to ensure that this collaboration between performer and specta-
tor is maintained throughout the performance. The supportive mechanisms of
theater and spectacle-the costumes, lights, language, music, and motion-not
only fulfill the poetic function posited by Jakobson; they also fulfill a phatic
function (140a). The phatic function in Jakobson's analysis of communication
is the aspect of interaction that keeps all parties engaged with each other
during the duration of communication. Theater does even more than engage
participants and spectators in the immediate context of the theatrical event. It
evokes and solidifies a network of social and cognitive relationships existing
in a triangular relationship between performer, spectator, and the world at
large. The phatic connection is fragile, and constantly shifting. Therefore no
single experience of theater or spectacle is ever exactly like any other. This
indeterminacy is part of what makes theater and spectacle forever intriguing.

Literature Cited

1. Adler H. 1982. Politisches Theater in Lat-
ein Amerika von der Mythologie uiber die
Mission zur Kollektiven Identitat. Berlin:
Reimer
1a. Al-Khozai MH. 1984. The Development of
Early Arabic Drama 1847-1900. London:
Longmans
2. Alland A. 1977. The Artistic Animal. Gar-
den City: Doubleday
3. Allegri L. 1978. Per una Storia del Teatro
come Spettacolo: il Teatro di Burattini e di
Marionette. Parma: Univ. Parma, Cent.
Stud. Arch. Comun.
4. Alter J. 1990. A Sociosemiotic Theory
of Theater Philadelphia: Univ. Penn.
Press
5. And M. 1963-1964. A History of Theatre
and Popular Entertainment in Turkey. An-
kara: Forum Yainlari
6. And M. 1973. Origins and early develop-
ment of the Turkish theatre. Rev. Natl. Lit-
eratures 4:53-64
7. And M. 1983. A History of Theatre and
Popular Entertainment in Turkey. Ankara:
Forum Yainlari. 2nd ed.
8. And M. 1986. Theatres d'ombres: tradi-
tion et modernite. Paris: Inst. Int. Mario-
nette/ L'Harmattan
9. And M. 1987. Culture, Performance and
Communication in Turkey. Tokyo: Inst.
Stud. Lang. Cult. Asia and Africa
10. Apte M. 1985. Humor and Laughter: An
Anthropological Approach. Ithaca, NY:
Cornell Univ. Press
10a. Araki JT. 1978. The Ballad-Drama of Me-
dieval Japan. Rutland, VT: Tuttle
11. Armstrong RP. 1989. The Powers of Pres-
ence: Consciousness, Myth and Affecting
Presence. Philadelphia: Univ. Penn. Press
12. Ashton MB, Christie B. 1977. Yaksagana:
A Dance Drama of India. New Delhi:
Abhinav
13. Aston E, Savona G. 1992. Theatre as Sign
System: A Semiotics of Text and Perfor-
mance. New York: Routledge
14. Awasthi S. 1975. The scenography of the
traditional theatre of India. Drama Rev.
T-64:36-46
15. Awasthi S. 1983. Drama: The Gift of Gods.
Culture, Performance and Communica-
tion in India. Tokyo: Inst. Stud. Lang. Cult.
Asia and Africa
16. Awasthi S. 1989. "Theatre of Roots": en-
counter with tradition. Drama Rev. 33(4):
48-69
17. Bab J. 1931. Das Theater im Lichte der
Soziologie. Leipzig: Hirschfeld
18. Babcock B. 1978. The Reversible World:
Symbolic Inversion in Art and Society. Ith-
aca, NY: Cornell Univ. Press
18a. Baghban H. 1977. The context and con-
cept of humor in Magadi theater. PhD the-
sis. Ind. Univ.
19. Bakhtin M. 1981. The Dialogic Imagina-
tion. Austin: Univ. Texas Press
19a. BakhtinM. 1984. Rabelais and His World,
Transl. H Iswolsky. Bloomington: Ind.
Univ. Press
19b. Bakhtin M. 1986. Speech Genres and
Other Late Essays. Austin: Univ. Texas
Press
20. Bandem IM, deBoer, FE. 1981. Kaja and

This content downloaded from

144.82.8.239 on Thu, 21 Oct 2021 20:49:39 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Kelod: Balinese Dance in Transition.
Kuala Lumpur: Oxford Univ. Press
21. Barba E. 1979. The Floating Islands.
Holtsebro, Denmark: Bogtrykkeri
22. Barba E. 1982. Theatre anthropology.
Drama Rev. 26(2):5-32
23. Barba, E, Savarese N. 1991. A Dictionary
of Theatre Anthropology. New York:
Routledge
24. Bateson G. 1955. A theory of play and
fantasy. Psychiatr Res. Rep. 2:39-51
25. Bateson G. 1958. Naven. Stanford: Stan-
ford Univ. Press. 2nd ed.
26. Bateson G. 1972. Steps to an Ecology of
Mind. Scranton: Chandler
27. Bateson G, Belo J, Mead M. 1952. Trance
and Dance in Bali. Distributed by NYU
Film Library
28. Bauman, R. 1977. Verbal Art as Perfor-
mance. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland
29. Bauman R. 1986. Story, Performance and
Event: Contextual Studies of Oral Narra-
tive. New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
29a. Bauman R. 1989. Performance. In Inter-
national Encyclopedia of Communica-
tions, ed. E Barnouw, 3:262-66. Oxford:
Oxford Univ. Press
30. Bauman R. 1992. Reflections on the Folk-
life Festival: An Ethnography of Partici-
pant Experience. Bloomington: Ind. Univ.
Press
31. Bauman R, Briggs CL. 1990. Poetics and
performance as critical perspectives on
guage and social life. Annu. Rev. An-
thropol. 19:59-88
32. Beeman WO. 1977. Traditional Iranian im-
provisatory theatre. In Catalogue of 11th
Annual Festival of Arts, Shiraz. Tehran:
Festival of Arts Center and Sorush Press
33. Beeman WO. 1979. Cultural dimensions of
performance conventions in Iranian
Ta'ziyeh. In Ta 'ziyeh: Ritual and Drama in 51. Beza'i B. 1965. Namayesh dar Iran [Per-
Iran, ed. PJ Chelkowski. New York: New
York Univ. Press
34. Beeman WO. 1980. The use of music in
popular film: East vs. West. India Int. Cent.
Q. (New Delhi) 8(1):77-87
35. Beeman WO. 1981. Afull arena: the devel-
opment and meaning of popular perfor-
mance traditions in Iran. In Modem Iran:
The Dialectics of Continuity and Change,
ed. M Bonine, N Keddie. Albany: State
Univ. New York Press
36. BeemanWO. 1981. Why do they laugh? An
interactional approach to humor in tradi-
tional Iranian improvisatory theatre. J. Am.
Folklore 94(374):506-26
37. Beeman WO. 1982. Cultural performance
and social drama: communicational as-
pects. Paper presented at Wenner-Gren
Found. Anthropol. Res. Conf. on Contem-
porary Japanese Theater, New York, May
19-24, 1982
This content downloaded from
144.82.8.239 on Thu, 21 Oct 2021 20:49:39 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
THEATER AND SPECTACLE 387
38. Beeman WO. 1982. Culture, Performance
and Communication in Iran. Tokyo: Inst.
Stud. Lang. Cult. Asia and Africa
39. Beeman WO. 1982. Tadashi Suzuki's uni-
versal vision. Perform. Arts J. 6(2):77-87
40. Beeman WO. 1982. The word is an act of
the body. Interview with Tadashi Suzuki.
Perform. Arts J. 6(2):88-93
41. Beeman WO. 1986. Language Status and
Power in Iran. Bloomington: Ind. Univ.
Press
42. Beeman WO. 1988. Theatre in the Middle
East. In Cambridge Guide to World Thea-
tre, ed. M Banham, pp. 664-76. Cam-
bridge: Cambridge Univ. Press
43. Beeman WO. 1992. Mimesis and travesty
in Iranian traditional theater. In Gen-
der in Performance: The Presentation
of Difference in the Performing Arts,
ed. L Senelick, pp. 14-25. Hanover,
NH: Tufts Univ. Press/Univ. Press New
England
44. Belo J. 1949. Bali: Rangda and Barong.
New York: Am. Ethnol. Soc.
45. Belo J. 1960. Trance in Bali. New York:
Columbia Univ. Press
46. Belo J, ed. 1970. Traditional Balinese Cul-
ture. New York: Columbia Univ. Press
47. Ben-Amos D, Goldstein K, eds. 1975.
Folklore, Performance and Communica-
tion. The Hague: Mouton
48. Beneix R. 1989. Backstage Domains:
lan- Playing William Tell in Two Swiss Commu-
nities. Bern/Frankfurt am Main/New
York/Paris: Lang
49. Bennett S. 1990. Theatre Audiences: A
Theory of Production and Reception. New
York: Routledge
50. Bethe M, Brazell K. 1978. No as Perfor-
mance. Ithaca, NY: Cornell Univ., China-
Japan Prog.
formance in Iran]. Tehran: Chap-e Kavian
52. Blackburn SH. 1981. Oral performance:
narrative and ritual in Tamil tradition. J.
Am. Folklore 94(3):207-27
53. Blacking J, ed. 1977. The Anthropology of
the Body. London: Academic
54. Blau H. 1990. Universals of performance;
or amortizing play. See Ref. 199, pp. 250-
72
54a. Blau H. 1992. To All Appearances: Ideol-
ogy and Performance. New York: Rout-
ledge
55. Borie M. 1989. Antonin Artaud: le theatre
et le retour aux sources: une approche
anthropologique. Paris: Gallimard
56. Bouissac P. 1976. Circus and Culture: A
Semiotic Approach. Bloomington: Ind.
Univ. Press
57. Bourdieu P. 1977. Outline of a Theory of
Practice. Cambridge/New York: Cam-
bridge Univ. Press
388 BEEMAN
58. Bowers F 1952. Japanese Theatre. New
York: Hill & Wang
59. Brandes S. 1988. Power and Persuasion:
Fiestas and Social Control in Rural Mex-
ico. Philadelphia: Univ. Penn. Press
60. Brandon J. 1967. Theatre in Southeast
Asia. Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press
61. Brandon J, Maim W, Shively DH, eds.
1978. Studies in Kabuki: ItsActing, Music,
and Historical Content. Honolulu: Univ.
Hawaii Press
62. Briggs CL. 1988. Competence in Perfor-
mance: The Creativity of Tradition in
Mexicano Verbal Art. Philadelphia: Univ.
Penn. Press
62a. Burke K. 1945. A Grammar of Motives.
New York: Prentice Hall
62b. Burke K. 1966. Language as Symbolic
Action: Essays on Life, Literature and
Method. Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press
62c. Burke K. 1969. A Rhetoric of Motives.
Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press
63. Burns E. 1974. Theatricality. New York:
Holt Rinehart and Winston
64. Canziani R. 1984. Il Dramma e lo
Spettacolo. Rome: Edizioni dell' Ateneo
65. Carlson M. 1989. Places of Performance.
Ithaca, NY: Cornell Univ. Press
66. Chelkowski P, ed. 1979. Ta'ziyeh: Ritual
and Drama in Iran. New York: New York
Univ. Press and Sorush Press
67. Clara van Groenendael VM. 1985. The
Dalang Behind the Wayang. Dordrecht:
Foris
68. Clara van Groenendael VM. 1987. Wayang
Theatre in Indonesia: An Annotated Bibli-
ography. Dordrecht: Foris
69. Crawford JPW. 1915. The Spanish Pasto-
ral Drama. Philadelphia: Univ. Penn. Press
69a. Csikszentmihalyi M. 1975. Beyond Bore-
dom and Anxiety. San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass
70. DaMatta R. 1991. Carnivals, Rogues and
Heroes: An Interpretation of the Brazilian
Dilemma. Transl. J Drury. Notre Dame:
Univ. Notre Dame Press
71. DaMatta R. 1990. For an anthropology of
the Brazilian tradition. Work. Pap. #182 of
the LatinAm. Prog. of the Woodrow Wilson 91. Emigh J. 1981. Masking and playing: ob-
Cent. Washington, DC: The Wilson Cent.
71 a. DaMatta R. 1981. Universo do Carnaval:
Imagens e Reflexoes. Rio de Janeiro:
Edicoes Pinakotheke
72. Davis NZ. 1982. Society and Culture in
Early Modem France. Stanford: Stanford
Univ. Press
73. Davis NZ 1975. The reasons of misrule. In
Society and Culture in Early Modem
France, ed. NZ Davis. Stanford: Stanford
Univ. Press
74. De Zoete B. 1953. The Other Mind: A
Study of Dance in South India. London:
Gollancz
75. De Zoete B. 1958. Dance and Magic
This content downloaded from
144.82.8.239 on Thu, 21 Oct 2021 20:49:39 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Drama in Ceylon. New York: Theater Arts
Books
76. De Zoete B, Spies W. 1938. Dance and
Drama in Bali. London: Faber & Faber
77. Debord G. 1970. The Society of the Spec-
tacle. Detroit: Black & Red
78. Deldime R. 1990. Le Quatrieme Mur: Re-
gards Sociologiques sur la Relation
The'atrale. Paris: Editions Promotion
mIeatre
79. Dening G. 1993. The theatricality of history
making and the paradoxes of acting. Cult.
Anthropol. 8(1):73-95
80. Des Bouvrie S. 1990. Women in Greek
Tragedy: An Anthropological Approach.
Oslo: Norwegian Univ. Press
81. Drewal HJ, Drewal MT. 1983. Gelede: Art
and Female Power among the Yoruba.
Bloomington: Ind. Univ. Press
82. Dundes A, Falassi A. 1973. La Terra in
Piazza: An Interpretation of the Palio
of Siena. Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press
83. Duranti A. 1983. Samoan speechmaking
across social events: one genre in and out
of a fono. Lang. Soc. 12:1-22
84. Duranti A. 1984. Intentions, Self and Local
Theories of Meaning: Words and Social
Action in a Samoan Context. La Jolla, CA:
Cent. Hum. Info. Proc., Univ. Calif., San
Diego
85. Duranti A, Brenneis DL, eds. 1986. The
audience as co-author. Text 6(3):239-347
(Spec. Issue)
86. Duvignaud J. 1965. Sociologie du Theatre.
Paris: Presses Univ. France
87. Duvignaud J. 1970. Spectacle et Societe.
Paris: Editions Denoel
87a. East NB. 1970. African Theatre. A Check-
list of Critical Materials. New York: Afric-
ana Publishing
88. Elam K. 1980. The Semiotics of Theatre
and Drama. London/New York: Methuen
89. Emigh J. 1993. Masking and Playing:
Studies in Masked Performance. Philadel-
phia: Univ. Penn. Press. In press
90. Emigh J. 1979. Playing with the past: visi-
tation and illusion in the mask theatre of
Bali. Drama Rev. 23(2):11-48
servations on masked performance in New
Guinea. World of Music 3:5-25
92. Emigh J. 1984. Dealing with the demonic:
strategies for containment in Hindu iconog-
raphy and performance. Asian Theatre J.
1(1):21-39
93. Emigh J. 1986. Ajoker in the deck: Hajari
Bhand of Rajasthan. Drama Rev. 30(1):
101-30
94. Emigh J. 1990. The domains of Topeng. In
Art and Politics in Southeast Asia: Six
Perspectives, ed. R Van Neil, pp. 65-96.
Honolulu: Univ. Hawaii Press. Cent.
Southeast Asian Stud. Southeast Paper No.
32

95. Erdman J. 1985. Patrons and Performers
in Rajasthan: The Subtle Tradition. New
Delhi: Chanakya
96. Ernst E. 1974. The Kabuki Theatre. Hono-
lulu: Univ. Press Hawaii
97. Fabian J. 1990. Power and Perfonnance:
Ethnographic Explorations through Pro-
verbial Wisdom and Theater in Zaire. Mad-
ison: Univ. Wisc. Press
98. Falassi A. 1967. Time out of Time: Essays
on the Festival. Albuquerque: Univ. New
Mexico Press
99. Feld S. 1982. Sound and Sentiment: Birds,
Weeping, Poetics and Song in Kaluli
Expression. Philadelphia: Univ. Penn.
Press
100. Fernandez J. 1986. Persuasions and Per-
formances: The Play of Tropes in Culture.
Bloomington: Ind. Univ. Press
lOOa. Fiebach J. 1986. Die Toten als die Macht
derLebenden. Zur Theorie und Geschichte
von Theater in Afrika. Berlin: Henschel-
verlag Kunst und Gesellschaft
101. Fischer-Lichte E with Weiler C and
Schwind K. 1985. Das Drama und seine
Inszenierung. Tiubingen: Max Niemeyer
102. Flores R. 1988. "Los Pastores:" perfor-
mance, poetics and politics in folk drama.
PhD thesis. Univ. Texas at Austin
103. Foley K. 1984. Of Dalang and Dukun-
spirits and men: curing and performance inDaily Life in a Brazilian Indian Village.
the Wayang of West Java. Asian Theatre J. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
1(1):52-75
104. Foley K. 1985. The dancer and the danced:
trance, dance and theatrical performances
in West Java. Asian Theatre J. 2(1):28-49
105. Foster H. 1985. Recodings: Art, Spectacle,
Cultural Politics. Seattle: Bay
106. Friedrich P. 1986. The Language Parallax.
Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
107. Frisbie CJ, ed. 1980. Southwestern Indian
Ritual Drama. ProspectHeights, IL: Wave-
land
108. Gafary F 1980. Evolution of rituals and
theater in Iran. Iranian Stud. 17(4):361-90
109. Garfinkel H. 1960. Studies in Ethnometho-
dology. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall
110. Gargi B. 1962. Theatre in India. New York:
Theatre Arts Books
111. Gargi B. 1966. Folk Theatre of India. Se-
attle: Univ. Washington Press
112. Garner NC, Turnbull CM. 1979. Anthro-
pology, Drama and the Human Experi-
ence. Washington: George Washington
Univ. Div. Exp. Prog.
112a.Gaster T. 1950. Thespis: Ritual, Myth and
Drama in the Ancient Near East. New
York: Schuman
113.Geertz C. 1972. Deep play: notes on the
Balinese cockfight. Daedalus 101: 1-37
114. Geertz C. 1973. Person, Time and Conduct
in Bali. In The Interpretation of Cultures, 132. Hein N. 1973. The Miracle Plays of
C Geertz, pp. 360-411. New York: Basic
Books
This content downloaded from
144.82.8.239 on Thu, 21 Oct 2021 20:49:39 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
THEATER AND SPECTACLE 389
115. Geertz C. 1976. "From the native's point of
view": on the nature of anthropological
understanding. In Meaning in Anthropol-
ogy, ed. KH Basso, HA Selby. Albuquer-
que: Univ. New Mexico Press
116. Geertz C. 1980. Negara: The Theatre State
in Nineteenth Century Bali. Princeton:
Princeton Univ. Press
117. Ghaffari MB. 1988. The director speaks. In
Ta'ziyeh: Ritual and Popular Beliefs in
Iran, ed. MC Riggio, pp. 11-21. Hartford,
Conn: Trinity College
118. Giacche P. 1988. Antropologia culturale e
cultura teatrale: note per un aggiornamento
dell' approccio socio-antropologico al
teatro. Teatro e Storia 3(1):23-50
118a.Glassie HH. 1975. All Silver and No
Brass: An Irish Christmas Mumming.
Bloomington: Ind. Univ. Press
119. Goffman E. 1959. The Presentation of Self
in Everyday Life. Garden City, NJ: Double-
day Anchor
120. Goffman E. 1967. Interaction Ritual. Gar-
den City, NJ: Doubleday
121. Goffman E. 1974. Frame Analysis. Cam-
bridge: Harvard Univ. Press
122. Goodland JSR. 1972. A Sociology of Pop-
ular Drama. Totowa, NJ: Rowman &
Littlefield
123. Gregor T. 1977. Mehinaku: The Drama of
124. Grimes RL. 1976. Symbol and Conquest:
Public Ritual and Drama in Santa Fe, New
Mexico. Ithaca, NY: Cornell Univ. Press
125. Halpert H, Story G, eds. 1969. Christmas
Mumming in Newfoundland. Toronto:
Univ. Toronto Press
126. Handelman D. 1984. Inside-out, outside-
in: concealment and revelation in New-
foundland Christmas mumming. In Text,
Play and Society: The Construction and
Reconstruction of Self and Society,
ed. E Bruner, pp. 247-77. St. Paul, Minn:
West
127. Handelman D. 1990. Models and Mirrors:
Towards an Anthropology of Public
Events. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ.
Press
128. Handelman D. 1990. The Palio of Siena.
See Ref. 127, pp. 116-35
129. Hansen K. 1991. Grounds for Play: The
Nautunki Theatre ofNorth India. Berkeley:
Univ. Calif. Press
130. Harrison-Pepper S. 1990. Drawing a Cir-
cle in the Square: StreetPerforming in New
York's Washington Square Park. Jackson:
Univ. Miss. Press
131.Hawley JS. 1981. At Play with Krishna:
Pilgrimage Dramas from Brindavan.
Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press
Mathura. Delhi: Oxford Univ. Press
132a. Helfgot D, Beeman WO. 1993. The Third
390 BEEMAN
Line: The Opera Performer as Interpreter.
New York: Schirmer
133. Hess L. 1983. Ram Lila: the audience ex-
perience. In Bakhti in Current Research
1979-1982, ed. M Thiel-Horstman. Berlin:
Dietrich Reimer
134. Hill E. 1972. The Trinidad Carnival: Man-
date for a National Theatre. Austin: Univ.
Texas Press
135. Hoff F 1978. Song, Dance, Storytelling:
Aspects of the Performing Arts in Japan.
East Asia Pap. No. 15. Ithaca, NY: Cornell
Univ. China-Japan Prog.
136. Hornby R. 1986. Drama, Metadrama and
Perception. Lewisberg: Bucknell Univ.
Press
136aHsieh, C-P. 1991. The Taiwanese hand-
puppet theater: a search for its mean-
ing. PhD thesis. Brown Univ., Providence,
RI
137. Hymes DH. 1975. Breakthrough into per-
formance. In Folklore, Performance and
Communication, ed. D Ben-Amos, K
Goldstein. The Hague: Mouton
138. Hymes DH. 1975. Foundations in Socio-
linguistics: An Ethnographic Perspective.
Philadelphia: Univ. Penn. Press
139. Hymes DH. 1981. "In Vain I Tried to Tell
You": Essays in Native American Ethno-
poetics. Philadelphia: Univ. Penn. Press
140. Irvine JT. 1979. Formality and informality
in linguistic events. Am. Anthropol. 81:
773-90
140a. Jakobson R. 1960. Closing statement: lin-
guistics and poetics. In Style in Language,
ed. T Sebeok, pp. 350-77. Cambridge,
Mass: MIT Press
141. Jannati-Ata'i A. 1955. Bonyad-e Namay-
esh dar Iran [The Institution of Perfor-
mance in Iran]. Tehran: Chap-e Mihan
142. Johnson AW. 1993. Los Pastores: resis-
tance, opposition and the construction of
cultural identity. BA thesis. Brown Univ.,
Providence, RI
143. Jones, B. T. 1982. Kathakali dance-drama:
an historical perspective. In Performing
Arts in India: Essays of Music, Dance, and 161. Lawrence E. 1984. Rodeo: An Anthropolo-
Drama ed. B Wade, pp. 1 4 44. Washington
DC: Univ. Press America
144. Kapferer B. 1976. Entertaining demons:
comedy, interaction and meaning in a
Sinhalese healing ritual. Mod. Ceylon Stud.
6:1-55. Republished 1979 in Soc. Anal.
1:108-52
145. Kapferer B. 1981. A Celebration of De-
mons. Bloomington: Ind. Univ. Press
146. Kapferer B. 1986. Performance and the
structuring of meaning and experience. In 165. Little K. 1993. Masochism, spectacle, and
The Anthropology of Experience, ed. VW,
EM Bruner, pp. 188-206. Urbana: Univ. Ill.
Press
147. Keeler W. 1987. Javanese Shadow Plays:
Javanese Selves. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
Univ. Press
This content downloaded from
144.82.8.239 on Thu, 21 Oct 2021 20:49:39 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
148.Kennedy S. 1973. In Search of African
Theatre. New York: Scribner's
149. Kerman J. 1988. Opera as Drama. Berke-
ley: Univ. Calif. Press
150. Kimberling CR. 1982. Kenneth Burke's
Dramatism and Popular Arts. Bowling
Green, OH: Bowling Green State Univ.
Popular Press
151. Kirby ET. 1976. Ur-Drama. New York:
NYU Press
152. Kirshenblatt-Gimblett B. 1980. Contra-
band: performance, text and analysis of a
Purim-shpil. Drama Rev. 24(3):5-16
153. Kisliuk M. 1988. A special kind of cour-
tesy: action at a bluegrass festival jam ses-
sion. Drama Rev. 32(3):141-55
154. Kisliuk M. 1991. Confronting the quintes-
sential: singing, dancing and everyday life
among Biaka pygmies (Central African
Republic). PhD thesis. New York Univ.
155. Kisliuk M. 1993. Music and dance per-
formance among Biaka pygmies: the mak-
ing of a fluid cultural identity. In
African Pygmies of the Western Congo
Basin, ed. B Hewlett, S Bahuchet. In
press
156. Kuipers JC. 1990. Power in Performance:
the Creation of Textual Authority in
Weyewa Ritual Speech. Philadelphia: Univ.
Penn. Press
157. Kurath GP. 1967. Drama, dance and music.
In SocialAnthropology (Handbook ofMid-
dle American Indians), ed. M Nash, 6:158-
90. Austin: Univ. Texas Press
158. Kurath GP, Garcia A. 1973. Music and
Dance of the Tewa Pueblos. SantaFe: Univ.
New Mexico Press
158a. Landau J. 1958. Studies in Arab Theater
and Cinema. Philadelphia: Univ. Penn.
Press
159. LansingJS. 1977. Rama's kingdoms: social
supportive mechanismsfor the arts in Bali.
PhD thesis. Univ. Michigan
160. Lassy IJ. 1916. The Muharram Mysteries
among the Azerbaijan Turks of Caucasia.
Helsingfors: Lilius & Hartzberg
gist Looks at the Wild and the Tame. Chi-
cago: Univ. Chicago Press
162. Leiter SL. 1979. The Art of Kabuki: Fa-
mous Plays in Performance. Berkeley:
Univ. Calif. Press
163.Lesnick H. 1973. Guerilla Street Theater.
New York: Avon
164.Lindenberger H. 1984. Opera: The Ex-
travigant Art. Ithaca, NY: Cornell Univ.
Press
the "Broken Mirror" clown entr6e: a note
on the anthropology of performance in
postmodern culture. Cult. Anthropol. 8(1):
117-29
166. Lord AB. 1960. The Singer of Tales. Cam-
bridge: Harvard Univ. Press
 THEATER AND SPECTACLE 391

167. MacAloon J. 1984. Olympic games and the
theory of spectacle in modern societies. See
Ref. 168, pp. 241-80
168. MacAloon J, ed. 1984. Rite, Drama, Festi-
val, Spectacle: Rehearsals Toward a The-
ory of Cultural Performance. Philadelphia:
Univ. Penn. Press
169. Mackerras C, ed. 1983. Chinese Theater
from Its Origins to the Present Day. Hono- 188. Rezvani M. 1962. La Th&iitre et la danse
lulu: Univ. Hawaii Press
170. Manning FE, ed. 1983. The Celebration of
Society: Perspectives on Contemporary
Cultural Performance. Bowling Green,
OH: Bowling Green Univ. Popular Press
171. Marglin FA. 1985. Wives of the God-King:
The Rituals of the Devadasis of Puri.
Delhi: Oxford Univ. Press
172. Mathur, JC. 1964. Drama in Rural India.
Bombay: Asia Publishing House
172a. McClard A. 1988. Becoming butterflies:
the mediation of paradox at Paradise
Street Theater. MA thesis. Brown Univ.
172a. McNamara B. 1976. Step Right Up. Gar-
den City, NJ: Doubleday
173. Mukhopadhyay D. 1978. Lesser Known
Forms of Performing Arts in India. New
Delhi: Sterling
174. Mukhopadhyay D. 1989. Culture, Perfor-
mance, Communication. Delhi: B. R. Pub-
lishing
175.Nunley J, Bettelheim J. 1988. Caribbean
Festival Arts. St. Louis/Seattle: The Saint
Louis Art Museum/Univ. Wash. Press
176. Oettinger M. 1985. Dancing Faces: Mexi-
can Masks in a Cultural Context. Washing-
ton, DC: Meridian House Int.
177. Ostor A. 1980. The Play of the Gods: Lo-
cality, Structure and Time in Bengali. Chi- 198. Schechner R. 1993. The Future of Ritual:
cago: Univ. Chicago Press
178. Painter MT. 1971. A Yaqui Easter Tucson:
Univ. Ariz. Press
179. Parmar S. 1975. Traditional Folk Media in
India. New Delhi: Geka
180. Pavis P. 1992. Theatre at the Crossroads of 200. Schegloff E. 1968. Sequencing in conver-
Culture. Transl. L Kruger. New York:
Routledge
181. Peacock J. 1968. Rites of Modernization.
Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
182. Peacock JL. 1967. Javanese clown and
transvestite songs: some relations between
"primitive classification" and communica-
tive events. In Essays on the Verbal and
Visual Arts (Proc. 1966 Annu. Meet. Am.
Ethnol. Soc.), pp. 64-75. Seattle: Univ.
Washington Press
183. Peacock JL. 1978. Symbolic reversal and
social history: transvestites and clowns of
Java. See Ref. 18, pp. 209-24
184. Peterson MA. 1989. On stage: the negoti-
ation of performance in a Denver theatre
community. MA thesis. Catholic Univ.
America
185. Phelan P. 1993. Unmarked: The Politics of
Performance. New York: Routledge
186. Read A. 1993. Theatre and Everyday Life:
A Theatrical Introduction. New York:
Routledge
186a. Reed SA. 1991. The transformation of
ritual and dance in Sri Lanka. PhD thesis.
Brown Univ.
187. Renondeau G. 1950. Le Bouddhisme dans
les No. Tokyo: Hosokawa
en Iran. Paris: Maisonneuve
189. Rickner R. 1972. Theater as ritual:
Artaud's Theatre of Cruelty and the Balin-
ese Barong. PhD thesis. Univ. Hawaii
190. Robertson M. 1984. The Newfoundland
Mummer 's Christmas House-Visit. Ottawa:
Natl. Mus. Canada
191. Robinson P. 1985. Opera and Ideas. Ithaca,
NY: Cornell Univ. Press
192. Savran D. 1986. The Wooster Group,
1975-1985: Breaking the Rules. Ann
Arbor: UMI Research
193. Schechner R. 1973. Environmental Thea-
tre. New York: Hawthorn
194. Schechner R. 1976. Selective innatention:
a traditional way of spectating now
part of the avant-garde. Perform. Arts J.
1:8-19
195. Schechner R. 1982. The End of Humanism.
New York: Performing Arts Journal Publ.
196. Schechner R. 1985. Between Theater and
Anthropology. Philadelphia: Univ. Penn.
Press
197. Schechner R. 1988. Performance Theory.
New York: Routledge. Revised and ex-
panded ed.
197a. Schechner R. 1990. Magnitudes of Per-
formance. See Ref. 199, pp. 19-49
Writings on Culture and Performance.
New York: Routledge
199. Schechner R, Appel W, eds. 1990. By
Means of Performance. Cambridge: Cam-
bridge Univ. Press
sational openings. Am. Anthropol. 70(6):
1075-98
201. Schegloff E. 1981. Discourse as an interac-
tional achievement: some uses of 'uh huh'
and other things that come between senten-
ces. InAnalyzing Discourse: Text and Talk.
Georgetown University Round Table on
Languages and Linguistics, ed. D Tannen,
pp. 71-93. Washington, DC: Georgetown
Univ. Press
202. Schmid H, van Kesteren A, eds. 1984.
Semiotics of Drama and Theater: New
Perspectives in the Theory of Drama and
Theatre. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benja-
mins
203. Senelick L. 1992. Gender in Perfor-
mance: The Presentation of Differ-
ence in the Performing Arts. Hanover,
NHlLondon: Tufts Univ. Press/Univ. Press
New England

This content downloaded from

144.82.8.239 on Thu, 21 Oct 2021 20:49:39 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 392 BEEMAN
204. Sherzer J. 1983. Kuna Ways of Speaking:
An Ethnographic Perspective. Austin:
Univ. Texas Press
205. Sherzer J. 1987. A discourse centered ap-
proach to language and culture. Am. An-
thropol. 89(4):295-309
205a. SiderG. 1977.Mumming in Outport New-
foundland. Toronto: New Hogtown
206. Silverstein M. 1976. Shifters, linguistic cat-
egories and cultural description. In Mean-
ing in Anthropology, ed. KH Basso, HA
Selby, pp. 11-55. Albuquerque: Univ. New
Mexico Press
207. Singer M. 1972. When a Great Tradition
Modernizes. London: Pall Mall
208. Slyomovics S. 1987. The Merchant ofArt:
An Oral Epic Egyptian Poet in Perfor-
mance. Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press
209. Slyomovics S. 1990. To put your finger in
the bleeding wound: Palestinian theatre
under Israeli censorship. Drama Rev.
34(2):18-38
209a. Smith P. 1983. A Year at the Met. New
York: Knopf
210.Speck F. 1951. Cherokee Dance and
Drama. Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press
211. Spicer RB. 1939. The Easter fiesta of the
Yaqui Indians of Pascua, Arizona. MAthe-
sis. Univ. Chicago
212. Steward J. 1932. A Uintah Ute bear dance.
Am. Anthropol. 34:263-73
213. Sweeney PL. 1972. Malay Shadow Pup-
pets: The Wayang Siam of Kelang. Kuala
Lumpur: Natl. Univ. Malaysia Press
214. Sweeney PL. 1972. The Ramayana and the
Malay Shadow Play. Kuala Lumpur: Natl.
Univ. Malaysia Press.
215. Swiderski RM. 1986. Voices: An Anthro-
pologist's Dialogue with an Italian-Amer-
ican Festival. Bowling Green, OH: Bowl-
ing Green Univ. Popular Press
216. Szwed J. 1969. The mask of friendship:
mumming as a ritual of social relations. See 235. Yamaguchi M, Naito M, eds. 1987. Social
Ref. 125
217. Taussig MT. 1980. The Devil and Com-
modity Fetishism in LatinAmerica. Chapel
Hill: Univ. NC Press
217a. Tedlock B. 1992. The Beautiful and the
Dangerous: Encounters with the Zuni In-
dians. New York: Viking
217b.Titon J. 1988. Powerhouse for God:
Speech, Chant and Song in an Appala-
chian Baptist Church. Austin: Univ. Texas
Press
218. Tomasio R, ed. 1984. Semiotica della
Rappresentazione. Palermo: Flaccovio
219.Turner V. 1967. The Forest of Symbols:
Aspects of Ndembu Ritual. Ithaca, NY:
Cornell Univ. Press
220. Turner V. 1969. The Ritual Process. Chi-
cago: Aldine
221. Turner V. 1974. Dramas, Fields and Met-
aphors. Ithaca, NY: Cornell Univ. Press
222. Turner V. 1982. Celebration: Studies in
This content downloaded from
144.82.8.239 on Thu, 21 Oct 2021 20:49:39 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Festivity and Ritual. Washington, DC:
Smithsonian Inst. Press
223. Turner V. 1982. Performing ethnography.
Drama Rev. 26:33-50
224. Turner V. 1986. FromRitual to Theatre and
Back New York: Performing Arts Journal
Publ.
225. Turner V. 1986. The Anthropology of Per-
formance. New York: Performing Arts
Journal Publ.
225a. Turner V. 1990. Are there universals of
performance in myth, ritual and drama? See
Ref. 199, pp. 8-18
226. Tyler SA. 1978. The Said and the Unsaid.
New York: Academic
227. Urban G. 1991. A Discourse Centered Ap-
proach to Culture. Austin: Univ. Texas
Press
228. Van Gennep A. 1960. The Rites of Passage.
Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
229. Vatsyayan K. 1977. Classical Indian
Dance in Literature and the Arts. New
Delhi: Sangeet Natak Academy
230. Vatsyayan K. 1981. The Traditional Thea-
tre of India. New Delhi: Sangeet Natak
Academy
231. Vatuk VP. 1978. Studies in Indian Folk
Traditions. Delhi: Manohar
232. Wade B, ed. 1982. Performing Arts in In-
dia: Essays of Music, Dance, and Drama.
Washington, DC: Univ. Press America
233. Willeford W. 1969. The Fool and His
Sceptre. London: Arnold
233a. Wilmeth D. 1978. The American Stage to
World War I: a Guide to Information
Sources. Detroit: Gale Research
233b. Wilmeth D. 1980. American and English
Popular Entertainment: A Guide to In-
formation Sources. Detroit: Gale Research
234. Yamaguchi M. 1980. Dokke no Uchu [The
Universe of the Clown]. Tokyo:
Hakusuisha
and Festive Space in the Caribbean.
Tokyo: Inst. Study Lang. Cult. Asia Africa
236. Yamamoto Y 1978. The Namahage: A Fes-
tival in the Northeast of Japan. Philadel-
phia: Inst. Study Hum. Issues
237. Zarilli P. 1979. Kalarippayattu, martial art
of Kerala. Drama Rev. 23(2):113-24
238. Zarilli P. 1986. From martial art to perfor-
mance: Kalarippayattu and performance in
Kerala, 1. Sangeet Natak 81-82:5-41
239. Zarilli P. 1986. From martial art to perfor-
mance: Kalarippayattu and performance in
Kerala, 2. Sangeet Natak 83:14-45
240. Zarilli P. 1986. Toward a definition of per-
formance studies, part I. Theater J.
38(3):372-76
241. Zarilli P. 1986. Toward a definition of per-
formance studies, part II. Theater J.
38(4):493-96
242. Zarilli P. 1990. What does it mean to "be-
come the character?" Power, presence, and
 THEATER AND SPECTACLE 393

transcendence in Asian in-body disciplines Actor, Performance, Structure. New Delhi:

of practice. See Ref. 199, pp. 131-48 Abhinav
243. Zarrilli P. 1984. The Kathakali Complex:

This content downloaded from

144.82.8.239 on Thu, 21 Oct 2021 20:49:39 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms