Althusser Ideology/ies: Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses

(an expository essay submitted for a module at the National University of Singapore, 12 October 2010)

Classical Marxism asserts that the social condition of every society is always determined by the mode of production of its particular historical condition. This line of analysis is the departure of Marxism from the Hegelian principle (or German philosophy in general) centered on the notion of ideas (ideology) descending from a metaphysical realm (i.e. consciousness as the producers of ideas). Marxism posits that material condition is responsible for what the society believes to be real and true. This is the origin of (German) ideology. This socio-cultural analysis is explored through the principles of economics. In particular, Marx and Engels (2010) are very critical against capitalism. This mode of argumentation is continued by the neo-Marxists in the 20^th century (i.e. Antonio Gramsci and Louis Althusser). Antonio Gramsci for instance translates the concept of ideology into hegemony within capitalistic society. Louis Althusser, on the other hand, pursues Marxism thru Gramsci’s analysis of capitalism and Marx’ ideology using structural method.

This essay explores the critical idioms of Louis Althusser and his relations with Marxism and structuralism. I will particularly discuss Althusser’s most cited chapter from his book Lenin and Philosophy (1971) titled “Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses (Notes towards an Investigation)” in the Humanities and the Social Sciences. In the end, I will attempt to discuss how post-structuralists used his idioms as take-off towards the establishment of a new critical tradition.

Much of Althusser’s structural influence comes from Claude Levi-Strauss, particularly Strauss’ concept of the binary oppositions. Althusser’s prime distinction between ideologies and ideology may be subsumed as his version of opposition. Marxism is historical and social. Althusser does not dismiss this theoretical position. But in pursuing Marxism, he introduces ideologies instead of ideology as the historical and social. Althusser elicits “ideology has no history” (120). For Marx, there is only ideology – that which is created by the mode of production or particularly that mode of production based on the economic condition of the society. Breaking ideology into several ideologies, Althusser argues that ideology is not only based on any economic principle. Christian ideology, political ideology, familial ideology, feminist ideology and queer ideology are some examples of ideologies.

Ideology for Althusser is the structured and generic content of ideologies. This association with structure is analogous to the concept of hegemony that Antonio Gramsci theorizes in his Prison Notebooks. In Gramsci’s discourse, hegemony as a form of domination (with consent) is the structure that makes members of the society believe that what they believe are real and true. This domination is always empirically linked with the state (Bennett et al. 1980). Ideology in the Althusserean sense is paralleled to the concept of language in the Saussurean sense. Language is systematic and structured. It has its own grammar and set of rules. The grammar and the rules are always inhabited in us. Most of the time, we tend to believe that language speaks us, instead of us speaking language. Language gives us this belief that we are in charge of it. Saussure (2010) explains, the grammar of any language dictates the way the language is used. Ideology, like language, gives us the illusion that we speak or control it. Ideology always makes us believe that we freely choose to believe the things we believe. As Althusser asserts, “ideology represents the imaginary relationship of the individuals to their real conditions of existence” (123).

This argumentation associates Althusser with psychoanalysts like Sigmund Freud and particularly Jacques Lacan. Ideology as a structural concept is linked with the subconscious. Althusser implies that the content of ideology, like in the subconscious may vary (ideologies are always different). It can be filled up with anything (i.e. Christian ideology, queer ideology, feminist ideology, postcolonial ideology) but the form will always remain the same. And like psychoanalysis, ideology always works unconsciously which will be discussed shortly.

Structuralism believes in an underlying principle of universalism in all societies and cultures. Ideology is the universal for Althusser and ideologies are the differing modes of understanding societies and cultures. Looking at the same discourse on language, Saussure posits that language is divided into two categorical inquiries: the langue and the parole. Langue, as the sum of word images stored in the minds of all individuals or the content of language itself, is similar to the Althusserean ideology. Parole, as the grammar, is a good analogy for ideologies.

Another important structural link in this discourse is Althusser’s critical interrogation on the concepts of the state and subjects as co-relations within a system. Like the structural method, Althusser is interested on the relationship and the derivative of “meanings” between the aforementioned concepts. For example, Singapore as a state and Singaporeans as subjects may be considered as one system. The Philippines as a state and the Filipinos as subjects is another system. Like in the structural approach, each system has its own governing structure. This governing structure is always dependent on the relationship and differentiation of all elements within the system. Althusser inquires how the state functions to its subjects and how the subjects function in accordance to the state. Considering that Singapore (as a nation-state) is a complete system, Althusser asks: why Singaporeans (as subjects) obey the state (Singapore as a state)? Why Singaporeans (as subjects) follow the laws produced by the government (the state)? Linking it with Marxism, particularly with Gramsci, Althusser inquires, why subjects (i.e. Singaporeans) apparently embrace capitalism without questioning it.

As mentioned earlier, Althusser does not dismiss capitalism. For him, capitalism is inevitable because its development is vis-à-vis the rise of modern nation-state. Following Marx and Gramci, Althusser is convinced that the state determines its mode of production. To keep this determination, the state inscribes a certain mode of governance that will give its subjects the illusion that what it does is always for the betterment of everyone. This institutionalization of governance does not guarantee the protection of its constituents but it is formed to protect its own interests. Capitalism is always argued to be the modern nation-state’s chosen mode of production. Democracy is always argued to be co-terminus with capitalism. For this reason, Althusser implies that state, capitalism and democracy are all co-terminus. Democracy is always defined in its classical sense as the government of the people, for the people and by the people. Althusser is probably skeptic about this pronouncement. He implies that democracy gave birth to the illusion of equality among all constituents. Following Althusser, constituents of democratic nations are always unequal particularly looking at the relations of labor and power. More concretely, Althusser states “we know that the reproduction of the material conditions of production cannot be thought at the level of the firm, because it does not exist at the level in its real conditions” (101). In this case, Althusser does not dismiss the Marxist concern about economic exploitation in capitalism (or exploitation in general). But despite of this, the constituents always behave in accordance to the State.

Althusser discusses that there are two mechanisms why constituents behave this way: the Repressive State Apparatuses (RSA) and the Ideological State Apparatuses (ISA). These mechanisms also explain why people act accordingly to the rules of the state even though in a deeper analysis, these rules are not necessarily the best interests of everyone. Following Marx, RSA’s are machines of repression (106) enabling the ruling class to continue their domination over their subjects. Althusser’s examples of the RSA’s are police, the courts, the prisons, the armies, the constitutions and the laws. Like the physical behavior or subjection of the working class with their employers in the Marxist political economy, the constituents of a state are forced to physically behave and be subjected by laws, regulations, etc. However, Althusser asserts that looking at the RSA as the end-all principles of “domination and dominated” is too simplistic. Therefore, “a further supplementary theoretical development” (109) is needed to extend social analysis outside political economy.

Ideological State Apparatuses (ISA) is Althusser’s response to the classical Marxist approach. Althusser is convinced that “repressive suggests that the State Apparatus in question functions by violence” (110). Repression is also manifested in non-physical or non-violent forms. ISA’s are non-physical forms of repressions. They are institutions creating ideologies, which individuals internalize and act without question or in accordance with. They create values, which oftentimes assert themselves to be at the core of the society. This is where the repressive part comes in. Althusser cites various examples of ISA’s: the system of the different Churches, the system of the different public and private schools, family, law, political systems, labor-unions, culture and the arts, and mass communication.

Nonetheless, the more important part of his analysis is the inquiry on the process of repression from these ISA’s. Althusser also reflects the reason behind the necessity to believe in the ISA’s. As mentioned earlier, Althusser does not deny capitalism as part of the dynamics of societies and cultures. The ISA’s function as masks to hide the capitalistic exploitations of the state. Althusser comments, the ISA’s repressive function “functions by ideology” (111).

As earlier discussed, Althusser considers ideology as something which is stored in the subconscious by the different ISA’s and produces what sort of things we believe. In pursuing this argument, he provides us with two theses: (1) ideology represents the imaginary relationship of individuals to their real conditions of existence and (2) ideology has a material existence.

The first thesis was already explored when I discussed Althusser as a structuralist. In addition, Althusser posits the need to recognize the imaginary representation of the real. He explains this necessity by proposing two simple answers. In the history of European societies, the priests or despots forged “the Beautiful Lies so that, in the belief that they were obeying God, men would in fact obey the Priests and Despots, who are usually in alliance in their imposture, the Priests acting in the interests of the Despots or vice versa” (123 – 4). Two pragmatic reasons are inferred here: for the ruling class to continue ruling and for the people not to recognize the real condition of their existence (i.e. suffering) from the hands of the ruling elites.

The second answer is aligned with Marx’ concept of alienation. Althusser explains that the material alienation of the real conditions prompts individuals to create representations distancing themselves from the real conditions of their existence. This is similar to the famous Marxist dictum, “religion as the opium of the people.” But for Althusser, it is not the institution or the ruling class that creates the illusion but individuals themselves. Althusser points out, “it is not their real conditions of existence, their real world, that ‘men’ ‘represent to themselves’ in ideology, but above all it is their relation to those conditions of existence which is represented to them there. This relation is at the “centre of every ideological i.e. imaginary, representation of the real world” (124 – 125). Individuals create narratives convincing themselves that their existence (or the relationship between the imagined world and the real world) is not so bad at all. In doing so, they alienate themselves a little bit further more. This sort of doubling distancing is like a drug keeping individuals away from the pain of alienation.

Althusser explains that the real world is never objectively out there as suggested by classical philosophers. It is a product of the individuals’ relationship to it, and the ideological representations individuals create about it. In other words, the stories we narrate as real become real. For example, in a family of medical doctors and lawyers, my being part of the academe is eccentric. I had to create my own stories to convince my family and myself that there is value in being an academic. But there is also a sense of exploitation here – the university where I am part of is “exploiting” my intellectual labor by demanding me to produce publications every two years, to engage in administrative work and to teach 12 hours a week. Yet, my salary cannot be compared to the salary that my cousins receive as medical doctors and lawyers. Because of this, I have in a way constructed sense of meaning or sense of value (ideology) in my position as a low-paying university instructor that will mask my real conditions (i.e. exploitation). I say that being part of the national university is a privilege because I receive a social status as compared to my cousins. Therefore, the respect and recognition are beyond the economic fulfillment that my cousins are getting. This principle is my sort of ideology to help me go on with my life in the university. It also consents the exploitation of my intellectual labor.

Althusser’s second thesis, “ideology has a material existence,” (125) is another extension of Marx. Rituals (i.e. church services or the Mass in the Catholic tradition) and behaviors (i.e. stopping before the stop light when the red light is on) manifested by these ideologies may be considered as good examples of ideology’s material existence. Althusser explains “we observe that the ideological representation of ideology is itself forced to recognize that every ‘subject’ endowed with a ‘consciousness,’ and believing in the ‘ideas’ that his ‘consciousness’ inspires in him and freely accepts, must ‘act according to his ideas’, must therefore inscribe his own ideas as a free subject in the actions of his material practice” (126 – 127).

More importantly, Althusser discusses the idea of the subject (or individual) as the central material force of ideology. As he points out, “there is no practice except by and in an ideology; there is no ideology except by the subject and for the subject” (128). That subject – in a person is a material in itself. Althusser is telling us that there are no ideologies (or belief systems?) unless someone believes in them and enacts them.

Here, Althusser explains how a subject (individual) is constituted in ideology and how ideology constructs the notion of the self (or identity): the category of the subject is constitutive of all ideology only in so far as all ideology has the function (which defines it) of ‘constituting’ concrete individuals as subjects (129, italics provided). In positing that individuals are subjects-in-ideology, Althusser explains that individuals are “always-already subjects” (130, italics provided). We are born as subjects (i.e. our parents gave our names, our gender and sexuality is subject to whether we have penis or not). But more so, Althusser asserts, “all ideology hails or interpellates concrete individuals as concrete subjects” (130, italics provided).

Interpellation is hailing. Ideology, in effect, hails to us. When we respond to clarify if it was indeed us being hailed, it answers back saying, “yes, you!” Several television advertisements are interpellating. An advertisement of a diet pill in the Philippines stated, “you need not hide anymore; you can already wear your swimsuit . . .” The advertisement seems to address me personally. It is interpellating – hailing and making me believe that the diet pill is in fact a necessity because it gives me this ideology that being fat is a social sore in the eyes.

Althusser makes some final notes on ideology by citing the Christian Religious Ideology as an example. Here, Althusser presents how individuals are transformed into subjects-in-ideology or how ideology specifically interpellates individuals. Most importantly, Althusser tells us that interpellation presupposes the existence of a unique and a central “other” Subject with a capital “S” – the source or the origin of a system or a structure. This creation of a source is very important for Althusser because when ideology hails us as subjects, we start to think that these ideologies (or ideas) addressed to us are absolute truths. In this example, he notes how Christian ideology has interpellated its congregation the idea of God as an ultimate Subject or the source, in which members of this congregation always return to in accordance to the justification of Christian laws, commandments, etc.

It is interesting to note that Michel Foucault was Althusser’s student. Foucault was also interested with the idea of power. But unlike his teacher, Foucault’s take-off was on the different power-relations and different forms of power outside the boundaries of the state. At the same time, his introduction of agency in opposition to the concept of ideological hailing may be considered to be an instance against structure (i.e. ideology). Foucault (1982) discusses that individual, when placed in relations of production and of signification, “is equally placed in power relations, which are very complex” (778). Foucault also asserts, that in these complex relations, individuals are not always in a struggle against oppression and exploitation. As he elicits, it is also important to recognize the struggle against the self and the submission to others (781).

Post-structuralists like Foucault and Jacques Derrida recuperate the concept of the individual and interrogate the concept of structure. Foucault seems to suggest that the individual in the method of hailing is undermined. Foucault is seemingly dubious of ideology as always hailing (i.e. television advertisement). What is the certainty that we are really hailed? Like the case of the diet pill commercial, why is it that despite of its continuous direct addressing of me, I have not bought a single pill.

On the other hand, ideology in Althusser appears to be a centre that holds the system or structure together. It may be inferred that ideology is a structural centre holding the state and its constituents together. Ideology may be argued to be Althusser’s obsession with “the structurality of structure” (Derrida 2007: 217). But nonetheless, Althusser can also be considered as the prophetic voice of a post-structural discourse. Jacques Derrida explains that the idea of the center is useful in a sense that it makes us realize the illusion of stability. Althusser’s ideology has shaken the idea of stability as it provides a room to discover illusions. But nonetheless, his discourse on the necessity for the absolute subject (i.e. his example on the Christian Religious Ideology) provides a centre. In this example, the idea of a centre appears to be a transcendental signified which cannot be represented or substituted by any adequate signifier. It appears that, Althusser embraces that there is a necessity for an ultimate source of meaning in a creation of an orderly system. Hence, Althusserean concept of ideology (although it talks about illusion) may be understood as the source or origin of stability in a society.

References

Althusser, Louis. 1994. “Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses (Notes towards an Ivestigation)” in Mapping Ideology. Slavoj Zizek (ed.), 100 – 140. London and New York: Verso Press.

Bennett, Tony et al. 1980. Culture, Ideology and Social Processes. London: Batsford.

Derrida, Jacques. 2007. “Structure, Sign and Play in the Discourse of the Human Sciences” in Jacques Derrida: Basic Writings. Barry Stocker (ed.), 217 – 234. London and New York: Routledge.

De Saussure, Ferdinand. 2010. “Course in General Linguistics.” In The Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism, 2^nd edition. Vincent B. Leitch et al (eds.). 845 – 866. New York and London: W.W. Norton and Company.

Foucault, Michel. 1982. “The Subject and Power” In Critical Inquiry 8 (4), 777 – 795.

Marx, Karl and Friedrich Engels. 2010. “From The German Ideology.” In The Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism, 2^nd edition. Vincent B. Leitch et al (eds.), 655 – 657. New York and London: W.W. Norton and Company.

Kuraldal in Sasmuan

Taken during the 2010 Festivity of the Kuraldal in Sasmuan, Pampanga. . . Imag(in)ing St. Lucy: The Performative and Narrative Construction of the KURALDAL in a Small Fishing Village in Pampanga (a research project by SIR ANRIL PINEDA TIATCO funded by the University of the Philippines Diliman Office of the Vice Chancellor for Research and Development)

Project Leader: SIR ANRIL PINEDA TIATCO

Research Assistants: BRYAN L. VIRAY and HAZEL MARANAN

Project Assistant / Adiver / OIC: AMIHAN BONIFACIO-RAMOLETE

Duration: June 2009 - December 2010

The National Artist Award 2009 Protest: Resonating Performances of Protests Against Colonization and the Making of a Social Theatre (An Excerpt)

From a new paper I am developing for an ISM (Independent Study Module). Also presented during the International Conference on Postcolonial Praxis at the University of the Philippines Diliman, 21 - 23 July 2010. Photo: Courtesy of UP System Information Office.

“To my enemies in the arts and culture, perhaps by now your face have turned blue because of envy and agitation. Finally, I already received the Award, which I have long planned through the help of my confidantes. Well – do not underestimate me. Of course, my abilities are special and different! But do not fret, I will share some tips on how the be a National Artist without undergoing the process of proper selection. What are the characteristics of a National Thief of an Award? You need to use your tongue to lick the ass of your superior. Well, it is not an easy task. I even swallowed my pride, my dignity and my integrity. You should also learn how to plan everything systematically – not only for a month, not even a year - just like what I did! I was not yet the Executive Director of the National Commission for the Pitiful Artists but I have already planned my dire desire to be a National Artist. Even before the commissioners appointed me this highest position in 2004, I already knew that they could never say no to the President’s letter regarding my appointment as National Artist. And when I was appointed as Executive Director, I started creating my allies. I gave them Php 40,000.00 each as bonus so that they would not speak anything against me. That is how corruption works! It is easy to ask a favor because of indebtedness. I know I will have several supporters – those who do not live by principles like me. I was patient. When the right time came - - when I realized that everyone in this Commission could easily be manipulated - - I started maneuvering my long-lasting desire to be National Artist. While President Gloria is in the position, I can do what I want to do! If I may able to send an airplane back to the airport, this manipulating thingy, this is nothing! So what if I am the presidential adviser in culture and the Executive Director of this Commission? In this day and age, to be refined and have integrity – what the hell are these? What integrity and dignity are you talking about? They are not real. How can they be real whence our president was positioned in power due to cheating? As the saying goes, like bitch, like puppy. […] At first, I found it difficult to choose which category of National Artist should I be. […] What else but the National Artist for Theatre because I staged this one spectacularly! At first, I spread the rumor that I have cancer – so that people would pity me. When that did not take off, well, I thought the script should be changed. And alas - - it was polished before the opening night. Because I am good at lying and I am a good actress! Boom! I am now a National Artist! Are you surprised? Eat your heart out! Why are you frowning? Why do you scorn me? Now that I was able to do this - - you may also do it, two years from now! Just follow all my tips! Sincerely, Kapalmuks, National Artist for Theatre, Music, Dance and Performing Arts, Executive adviser, for uncultured and bad taste. Frustrated first lady of the Philippines. Senyora Juana! (Vera 2009, translation mine)”

This selection was written by Rody Vera and performed by Mae Paner during the protest of the “Philippine arts community” held at the Cultural Center of the Philippines (CCP) ramp on 7 August 2009. Designed as a necrological service, the protest was an embodied testimonial against the proclamation of the 2009 National Artists by President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo. The protest was also a public statement of disgust and dismay concerning the events that occurred between the nomination periods to the official announcement of Malacañang on the recipients of the prestigious award.

This paper looks at this protest as a resonance of drama simbolico, the seditious sarsuwela against American Colonization during the turn of the 20^th century and the political performances (social theatres) in 1980s against the dictator Ferdinand Marcos. The National Artist Award Protest, like these earlier protest-performances (branded as seditious), is a political struggle whereby a non-violent recalcitrance to the totalitarian and corrupted authorities is featured. Like the earlier post-colonial and anti-colonial / anti-imperialist performance protests, the 2009 National Artist Protest may be perceived as an anti-colonial / anti-imperialist gesture because the performers are “speaking and that voices, occur as something that are already embodied” (Martin 2010: 77 – 78). Thus, the performers from the drama simbolico to the political performances in 1980s to the protest in 2009,

“express their aspirations, through which they can create. […] in the discussions that follow performances, people are encouraged to be vocal and open. Thus do they slowly break through the culture of silence. It is said that any chance to express yourself, your views, opinions and feelings in an athmosphere of repression is a crack to freedom” (Nestor Horfilla in Van Erven 1987: 59).

In the end, this protest at the CCP will be interrogated whether or not it served as a microcosm of the Filipino people's disgust against imperialism as compared to drama simbolico and the performances of protests in 1980s, which are asserted as anti-imperialist struggles and recalcitrance against oppression and corruption in cultural form (Bodden 1996; Fernandez 1996, 2001; van Erven 1987; Tiatco and Ramolete 2010).

For more information please email siranrilpt@gmail.com

List of Lectures / Paper Presentations of S. Anril Pineda Tiatco

As of 7 May 2010

Tiatco, Sir Anril P. 2009. “Situating Philippine Theatrical(s) in Southeast Asia (and in Larger Asia): A Critique on the Asian-ness / Philippine-ness of Philippine Theatre(s).” Paper presented at the 3^rd International Conference on Southeast Asia on 8 – 9 December at the University of Malaya in Kuala Lampur, Malaysia.

Tiatco, Sir Anril P. 2009. “Critiquing Nicanor G. Tiongson’s Four Values in Filipino Drama and Film: A Post-colonial Reading for Arts (Literary) Teachers.” Paper presented at the Visions and Articulations: The Carolina U. Garcia Centennial Conference on the Teaching of Literature on 18 -20 November at the University of Sto. Tomas in Manila, Philippines.

Tiatco, Sir Anril P. 2009. “Performance of (Un)dressing Masculinity in a Metropolitan Closet: Kabaklaan, Gayety, etc. in a Philippine Bathhouse.” Paper presented at the 31^st Ugnayang Pang-Agham Tao / Anthropological Association of the Philippines Annual Conference on 22 – 24 October at the Xavier University in Cagayan de Oro City, Philippines.

Tiatco, Sir Anril P. 2009. “Libad nang Apung Iru and Pamamaku King Krus: Performances of Ambivalences in Two Kapampangan Cultural Spectacles.” Professorial chair paper presented on 25 July at the Faculty Center, University of the Philippines, Quezon City, Philippines.

Tiatco, Sir Anril P. 2009. “Publishing in International Refereed Journal.” Keynote speech presented at the National Book Development Board National Conference on Publications on 23 April at the University of the Philippines Baguio in Baguio City, Philippines.

Tiatco, Sir Anril P. 2008. “Postscript to UP Komedya Fiesta 2008: Preliminary Insights on Komedya, National Theatre and Heritage.” Paper presented at the 30^th Ugnayang Pang-agham Tao / Anthropological Association of the Philippines Annual Conference on 23 – 25 October at the Provincial Hall in San Fernando City, Pampanga, Philippines.

Tiatco, Sir Anril P. 2008. “Apalit’s Fluvial Parade, Cutud’s Nailing on the Cross, and Calabanga’s Funeral of the Dead Christ: Theatres of Ambivalences in Three Catholic Philippine Communities.” Paper presented at the 51^st International Federation for Theatre Research Annual Conference on 14 – 19 July at the Chung-Ang University in Seoul, South Korea.

Tiatco, Sir Anril P. 2007. “Celebrating the Waters, Frenzying with St. Peter and Affirming the Sacred Crocs in Apalit, Philippines: An Example of Ethnography for Tourism.” Paper presented at the 13^th Asia Pacific Tourism Association and 5^th APec-CHRIE Conference on 21 – 25 May at the Landmark Hotel in Beijing, China.

Tiatco, Sir Anril P. 2006. “Ritual of Nailing on the Cross: Performance of Pain and Suffering.” Paper presented at the 2^nd Asian Center Graduate Studies Conference on 14 – 15 September at the Asian Center in the University of the Philippines, Quezon City.

Tiatco, Sir Anril P. 2006. “Foundations of Ethics in Businesses, Sciences and Related Professions.” Lecture presented on 16 July at the College of Home Economics, University of the Philippines, Quezon City.

Tiatco, Sir Anril P. 2005. “Pagpapako sa Krus: Pagtatanghal ng Sakit at Pasakit.” Paper presented at the Palabas: Colloquia on Philippine Performing Arts on 30 September at the CAL AVR, University of the Philippines, Quezon City.

List of Publications (On Philippine Theatre Studies) by S. Anril Pineda Tiatco

Publications as of 7 May 2010:

Tiatco, Sir Anril P. (Under Review). “Situating Philippine Theatricals in Asia: A Critique on the Philippine-ness and Asian-ness of Philippine Theatres.”

Tiatco, Sir Anril P. 2010. “Libad nang Apung Iru and Pamamaku King Krus: Performances of Ambivalences in Two Kapampangan Cultural Spectacles.” In TDR: The Drama Review 54 (2), 91 - 102.

Tiatco, Sir Anril P. 2009. “Postscript to University of the Philippines Komedya Fiesta 2008: Prelude to a Discourse on a National Theatre.” In Asian Theatre Journal 26 (2), 281 – 302.

Tiatco, Sir Anril P. 2009. “Miss Dulce Extranjera.” Carlos Palanca Memorial Award for Literature Official Website.

http://www.palancaawards.com.ph/2009MISS%20DULCE%20EXTRANJERA-3rd%20prize%20Full-length%20play%20filipino.php

Tiatco, Sir Anril P. 2008. “Celebrating in the Water and Frolicking with St. Peter: Performance of a Folk Narrative and a Catholic Church Narrative in a Kapampangan Community.” In Philippine Humanities Review 10 (Special Issue on Philippine Performance Studies), 91 – 104.

Tiatco, Sir Anril P. 2002. “Wonder: The Beginning of Knowing (A Phenomenology of Knowledge).” In CAS Digest 3 (2), 18 -22.

Tiatco, Sir Anril P. and Amihan Bonifacio-Ramolete. (forthcoming). “Performing the Nation Onstage: An Afterthought on the University of the Philippines Sarsuwela Festival 2009.” In Asian Theatre Journal, Spring 2011.

Tiatco, Sir Anril P. and Amihan Bonifacio-Ramolete. 2008. “Cutud’s Ritual of Nailing on the Cross: Performance of Pain and Suffering.” In Asian Theatre Journal 25 (1), 58 – 76.

Unstable Ground, edited by Gay McAuley (review of some sort)

Unstable Ground: Performance and the Politics of Place

Gay McAuley asks “What can performance do, that other discourses cannot to shape our understanding of places?” (in Dwyer 2006: 187). This enquiry may be subsumed into two fundamental reflective discourses that the book Unstable Ground: Performance and Politics of Place is seeking for: What is the relevance of place in the discourse of performance? What is the relevance of performance in a discourse of place / space? Edited by Gay McAuley, the book is a collection of essays emerging from a working-group seminar at the University of Sydney. Members of this group are interested in performance vis-à-vis the space / place and in particular that lived reality and / or embodied reality of a place. Consisting of 13 essays, McAuley divides the book into three categorizations as she emphasized in her introduction: aesthetics, cultural-historical, and dramaturgical strategies.

The 13 authors (sic, members of the working group) generally provide a multi-modal and/or multi-disciplinal paradigm in understanding space / place in connection with performance. Armfield interrogates the relationship of the aesthetics of space with two performances in Darling Harbour (Cloudstreet and Harbour). Maxwell connects acoustics and music (hip-hop) with space particularly suburb Australia. Cohen argues a performance of the nation-state (i.e. imagined community, imagined fantasy, and the physical geographical sketch that is Australia) in the Sydney 2000 Olympics opening ceremonies. Tompkins provides a closed-reading of Ghost Trilogy grounded within the notion of counter-monuments as utilized in various locales. Hollege and Moore tour us in an installation museum at Drill Hall in Adelaide through their “thick” description of the event. Goodall links the aesthetics of the Western theatrical traditions with other performative activities in Australia in relation to place. Shafer and Watt interrogate performance of heritage and identity through the performativity (or the “staging”) of the city of Newcastle. McAuley links trauma, social memory and history to place and performance. Schlunke explicates the performance of memorilisation of the massacred aboriginal people in Myall through the frames of ethics and history. Dwyer talks about the embodiment of protests that may link the past to the present and even to the future (effective historical consciousness). Brown, Snow, and Grant (with de Quincey) provide dramaturgical strategies on performances and/or instillations where space / place appears at the core. An afterward by J. Lowell Lewis is provided at the end of the book discussing a summation and / or intersections of these various essays with emphasis on the interrelatedness of memory, imaginations, politics, place and space.

Over-all, these essays explore the epistemology, performativity, phenomenology or even the metaphysics of place specifically that of place-making and place-taking. For the longest time in performance discourse (and analysis), space is often considered to be only supplementary to performance per se. In other words, a space is always a subject to the totality of performance (i.e. setting). In this book, place is highlighted as ubiquitous to performance if not the most important phenomenon in a performative activity. In these essays, place is marked not as a setting but as an independent entity, which has its own life, its own embodiment, its own politics (sic its own relationship), and its own performativity. As anthropologists Nancy Schepher-Hughes and Margaret Lock suggest about the body, a place has sociality, physicality and polity.

Implicitly grounded within these sociality, physicality and polity, I have earlier pointed out that these essays playfully interrogate space and action, which the title Unstable Ground truly suggests. The essays explicate that every time we talk about space, we at the same time are discussing geography (i.e. Goodall’s haunted places, Schaefer and Watt’s discussion on Nobby and Newcastle), landscape (Goodall’s haunted spaces talk about landscape, Tompkins’ notion of memorilisation deals with landscape and aesthetics), relationship (since we cannot talk about places or spaces without reference to individuals, it is tantamount to situate individuality as being-in-participation), politics (relationships are always about power relations), economy (power relations and economy are most of the time intertwined), history (Cohen and the national stadium, Auley’s discussion on the narratives of the Hyde Park, Villawood Immigration Detention Center, and Darkie Point) and ethnology (i.e the interrelatedness of the Aboriginal / Indigenous people and the Whites vis-à-vis Space / Place).

As these essays discuss issues on place-making and place-taking, performative actions / activities are also speculated. Nonetheless, the most critical offering of this book is its insight on the role of performance in the construction of the life, the epistemology, the narratology, the performativity of a space. For instance, a place becomes a valuable historical site because of the different performative incidents that may have occurred in that given place (like the Villawood Immigration Centre of Darkie Point in McAuley’s essay or the Tent Embassy in Dwyer’s). However, the book also explores that a space or a place in one way or another is also constructed for pragmatic and performative reasons (like the National Stadium, and the Drill Hall).

However, a sort of criticism in this revolutionary interdisciplinarity, multidisciplinarity and/or multimodality of the book is the misused of anthropological enquiry albeit a minor one (especially the afterword, which weaves all essays in anthropological grounding). I am not disregarding its attempt to situate the understanding of places based on how various communities perceive them to be (or perform them). This is a very important articulation in the phenomenological method of anthropology. Majority of the “voices” in the essays are coming from these authors yet most of them are talking about the specific experiences of the Aboriginal people or as Dwyer puts it “these Aboriginal citizens.” Albeit, these authors passionately address the issues and affirming the rights of their fellow-Aussies, these Indigenous Australians’ / Aboriginal Australians’ own narratives (histories, performativities, anxieties, etc.) are still apparently silenced. It is still predominantly the authors speaking (like representing the Indigenous as if they are completely aware of their world-view, microcosm, narratives, and what not).

On a final note, the book implicitly suggests that there is fluidity in meaning-making in terms of space vis-à-vis performance. The essays bring forth the exposition on how performance may influence a space and how a space may invoke a performance. Above all, these performances in these spaces create and recreate memory and forgetting in the communities. At the same time, spaces are there to serve either as memory or forgetting.

Performance of (Un)dressing Masculinity

The following selection is the conclusion of the essay, "Performance of (Un)dressing Masculinity in a Metropolitan Closet: Kabaklaan, Gayety, etc. in a Philippine Bathhouse," which I presented during the 31st Anthropological Association of the Philippines (UGAT) Conference held in Cagayan de Oro City, October 2009

The continuous negotiations of the bakla and gay narratives and/or performativities and these ambiguities prove that Philippine gay culture has always been a problematic discourse, especially if the discourse is in a search for identity. The bathhouse performances, which my informants regularly engage are proofs of this dilemma. The bathhouse phenomenon has created a new gay narrative complicating the discourse for gay identity: to be paradoxically closeted and un-closeted is a fad. The bathhouse as I argued has become a huge closet, a metropolitan closet where my informants seemingly perform the Philippine kabaklaan and the American gayness. However, there are other ambiguous performances than this paradox especially when the bathhouse is about to close. For instance, the notion of performing masculinity is suddenly dissolved whence it is a persistent and important script beginning 7 pm. The notion of incest as a bakla engages sexually with a fellow bakla is also dissolved as the bathhouse comes to its closing time.

The bathhouse appears to be the space for a modern gay culture. Nonetheless, in performing their conception of modern gay culture inside the bathhouse is a manifestation of appropriating an alternative sense of gayness which appears to be very ambiguous. Based on the narratives and performances of Gabe, Ariel, Rowell, John, and other members of this bathhouse present three texts: (1) that of the bakla, (2) that of the gay and (3) that of ambiguously another. It is in this light that the bathhouse offers continuous negotiations of identities in order to create a performance of a supposedly modernized gay culture. In the final analysis, the whole performance inside the bathhouse is my informants’ ways of delivering an alternative Filipino modern gay culture. I have presented that this deliverance of an alternative Filipino modern gay culture is always fluid and dynamic – always changing, always moving, always dancing, always shifting in performance.

Tourism and Ethnography

Excerpt from a paper read in Beijing, China for the 16th Asia Pacific Tourism Conference, May 2007

One role of the ethnographer is to outline cultural systems of a particular community. The ethnographer introduces to the outsider the "kinds of things to say in what message forms to what kinds of people in what kinds of situations” (qtd. in Frake 1964). Norms, patterns of life, rules, history, social structures, among others are implicated in any anthropological work. In the ethnography I presented, I have outlined some cultural characteristics of the Apaliteños as they engage in a water ritual and festival.

It is implicated that the ritual and festival performance is maintained and sustained through a folk narrative. In this folk narrative, the Apalit community performs a sense of social solidarity in venerating St. Peter not only as a Christian image but also as a folk icon – a hero. In the ritual-festival, food and water are important factors in the performance. Nonetheless, water is the most dominant ritual instrument in the festivity. “Celebrating the waters” means to be immersed in the water as the ritual/festival proceeds. Finally, the ethnography implicates a pre-colonial stance of the Kapampangan (sic Apaliteños) community. Despite of the persistency of the Catholic Church narrative, the folks are continuously affirming an ancient religious tradition. It is in this sense that the performativity of the ritual and festival is a continuous engagement of the Apaliteños with their pre-colonial, colonial and post-colonial traditions. Fanella Cannell (1999) explains that Filipino culture is always in continuous negotiations with her colonizers. She suggests that the images of her colonizers are not pathetically imitated by the Filipino people.

Through this ethnography, an outsider (in this case, the tourist) is given a glimpse of the fundamental characteristics of this festivity. Not to mention, this ethnography may also be used as a tool in packaging the ritual/festival as a cultural attraction. In the website of Wow Philippines, the official theme site of the Department of Tourism mentions:

“The Apung Iru Fluvial Parade in Apalit, Pampanga begins on June 28 when the ivory image of St. Peter, sitting on a papal throne, is transferred by boat from its permanent shrine in Brgy. Capalangan to Brgy. Sulipan, and culminates on June 30 when the image is returned. Thousands of devotees line both sides of the river shouting, waving leaves and flowers, and splashing in frenzy as the layered pagoda bearing the statue passes by accompanied by hundreds of boats. The floating pagoda, which bears the brass band and about 70 people dancing the traditional Kuraldal, is pulled along the river by swimmers who call themselves the Knights of St. Peter. During the fluvial procession, thousands of revelers on the riverbanks perform the annual shower of packed food containing boiled eggs, rice, and canned sardines meant for the swimmers. The annual event never fails to attract thousands of local and foreign tourists.”

However, I am convinced that the outsider (the tourist) needs to know more than these descriptive notes of the water ritual and festival. The outsider in visiting Apalit for instance, is expected to engage actively in the ritual and festival. Not to mention, I have highlighted several activities (like the water exchanges) that might offend the tourist once inside the community. It is therefore very crucial that the tourist is given some notes regarding the norms, the performativity and ritual practices that the community engages with as the ritual/festival proceeds. It is in this light that anthropologists and the tourism department must work hand in hand in packaging cultural attractions for tourism. This is so to eliminate prejudicial biases on both sides of the tourist and the community involved. There may be some practices within the community that may be considered taboo by an outsider. Through the reflective interpretation of the anthropologist, this particular judgment may be elicited. There may be some practices in the community whereby spectators are really expected to participate. For instance in this water ritual and festival, everyone is expected to engage in water exchanges. Through the engagement of anthropological study, alienation may be diminished on the part of the tourist. The involvement of the anthropologist may also be instrumental in underlining the importance of cultural diversity.

Asian Cultural Performances, Scholarship and the Asians: Asian “Insiders” vs. Non-Asian “Outsiders” / Objectivity vs. Subjectivity

When I defended my master’s thesis¹, I received an empowering and encouraging affirmation from my reader. I remember how she mentioned that no other cultural critic could accurately present the performative culture of the Kapampangan people except for an “insider” like me who is well exposed and immersed to the sensibility of that culture. At first, I could not agree less. I encountered literature about Kapampangan culture and ended up reacting against them for ‘misreading’ the culture.²

In a working group seminar on social science research methodology at the University of the Philippines, I encountered a fellow who had issues with an “insider” as non-objective. I remember how he commented that an “outsider” possesses the advantage of objectivity because of his position, which is distanced from the object of enquiry. Nevertheless, the plenary speaker answered promptly that objectivity is not a problem because even science (always thought as “the” objective), works under a paradigm making it not completely objective.

Two issues in cultural studies (and in performance studies) are highlighted in the above-mentioned accounts: the contesting narrative(s) of the “insider” and the “outsider” and the problem of objectivity against subjectivity. These issues are interrogated in this essay as I problematise whether or not Asian cultural performances are best interpreted by Asians.

Most literature in Asian theatre/performance studies are written by non-Asians. The most celebrated dictionary on Asian theatres was written by James Brandon.³ The Asian Theatre Journal (ATJ), a refereed journal on Asian theatrical and performance traditions is currently published by the University of Hawaii in the United States and currently edited by Kathy Foley of the University of California at Santa Cruz.⁴ In Anthropology, Clifford Geertz is hailed to be an expert in Javanese culture (and performance). He is always referred to in various discussions on Indonesian culture (i.e. theatre and proto-theatre such as the Balinese cockfight) (See Latrell 1999, Li 2001, Bronner 2005, Pecora 2007, Fajardo 2008, Kindt 2009). Sally Ann Ness (1992) wrote extensively about the political economy vis-à-vis Catholicism of an impassioned dance-ritual in the Aklan province of the Philippines. Kirsten W. Endres (2006) concludes that personal identity in Modern Vietnam is ritually constructed through spirit possession. Craig Latrell (1999, 2008), an expert on Malaysian and Indonesian theatres, criticizes Malay and Indonesian theatres as superficial because of the impingement of these nation-states’ tourist industries. Is there something wrong with these academic exercises? As “non-Asians,” do these scholars communicate the language of these cultural performances?

In the academe, I always hear fellow-Asian scholars/students⁵ complaining how Western scholarship has been constructing an understanding of “our” traditions within Western frames. These Asian scholars/students react unenthusiastically because as what the Indian anthropologist Vivek Dhareshwar (2007) suggests the Western representation of any Asian nation is always in comparison with Western modernism. Oftentimes this is associated with the post-colonial discourse of orientalism promulgated by Edward Said (2003) in 1980s and followed by other Asian scholars who in a way became adamant in being “reduced” by Western paradigms.

This sense of orientalism is somehow the culprit in this sort of agitation towards the West representing Asia/Asians in literature. Post-colonialists and orientalists commonly argue that Western scholars do nothing but present how differently-othered and marginalized the “Asians” (See Legasto 2004 for example). Most of the time, Asian scholars (including myself) read their assertions as ways of validating Western historicity as a modern world. In reaction, we also criticise them – saying that they do nothing but construct a generalised stereotype of the East (or Asia). We criticise them by saying the West imposes frames inapplicable to Asian experiences. Darehswar states, “the West crafted theories about their experience and these theories are impinged on us” (546). She adds,

“[a]s theories, they are supposed to enable us to describe and conceptualize our experience and they fail to do this (…) The West claims to have theories of the social / cultural world: what we do is study these theories in order to infer about western culture as part of the process of describing ourselves. Their theory of “other cultures” is a component of their existing theories of their own world (…)We need to construct a theory precisely because we could not make sense of their theories; because they did not capture any significant feature of our experience ”(547 - 548).”

Looking at what Dareshwar explicates, instead of correcting what the Western scholars thought about us (the misrepresentations if there really are), we tend to over-react with their articulations and simply prescribe that the “East” (Asia) should emancipate from Western discourses. At most, we criticise the West by generalising about their scholarship as presenters of a generalised and stereotyped “Asians.” We tend to conclude that their scholarship presents an exotic Asian valorizing colonial imperialism.⁶ In doing so, the same mode of discourse as the West is also utilised: they (the Westerners) orientalise, we (in Asia) occidentalise.

However, why is there such a feeling of distress with these Western assertions? Is it because we feel insulted that they are “outsiders” and yet they talk about our cultural traditions (i.e. cultural performances) as if they are “insiders”? Who should speak on behalf of the Asian cultural traditions – cultural performances for example? Are we from Asia more equipped to talk about “our” traditions? Does this mean that since we are geographically located in this huge landmass, we are more capable of intelligently interpreting what is happening within the region? Is there a demarcating line between someone from Asia as compared to someone who is not from Asia in terms of knowledge production? Are we, “Asians” unleashing a sense of Asian-ness when we talk about our cultural traditions? Are we, “Asians” present more objectivity as we underline the cultural relevance of our performances for example?

Steve Tillis (2003) critiques textbooks in theatre history outlining that these books are grounded within the east-west approach model. His argument begins by critiquing the prime assumption of this model: the East (Asia) is a singular cultural entity. In a sense, the model suggests a sameness of cultural experiences in all Asian countries. Like Tillis, Martin Manalansan (2003) is also ambivalent with this east-west approach discourse. He points out that in the United States (particularly in New York), a reference to “Asians” does not include those who are outside the East Asian boundary. The Koreans, the Japanese and the Chinese are most of the time associated with this concept in the Northern Hemisphere. Naoki Sakai (2000) and Allen Chun (2000) deny the concept of Asia. For Sakai, Asia “was coined by the Europeans in order to distinguish Europe from its Eastern others, in the protocol of constituting itself as a sort of territorial unity” (213). Chun on the other hand perceives Asia as a “utopic discourse” (556) formulating imperial ideology. Nick Joaquin (2004), national artist for literature in the Philippines claims that there is nothing ‘Asian’ in the Filipino people to begin with, except for the fact that these people are in Asia.

Asia is probably just a geographic marker making it difficult to pinpoint that “Asian” in Asia. To ask what seems to be Asian in the Philippines, in Japan, in Korea, in Indonesia, in Qatar, etc. may be anachronistic. Reiterating Joaquin, maybe there is nothing Asian in these ‘Asians’ except for the fact that all of them are in Asia.

If this is the case, the identification of us (the “Asians) as “insiders” of Asia is problematic. If we really are the “insiders” of Asia, how much of these cultural traditions (i.e. performances) we really know and understand? Take for example, the Arab-Muslim nations: how much awareness do we have about their ta’ziyeh performance conventions perform during the Muharram season as a ritual-mourning over the martyrdom of Imam Husain (Beeman 2002).

As “insiders,” we have this tendency to act as authorities in discussing Asian cultural traditions (sic, cultural performances). We are like “authors” (Barthes 1997) whose notion of narrative is linked with what Barthes calls as “theological meaning” – a definite meaning which can never be questioned. As authors, we “impose a limit on that text, to furnish it with a final signified, to close the writing” (122). As “insiders,” we tend to impose that the meaning of a performance cannot be shattered other than the meanings imposed by the Asian communities who are performing it. Following Barthes, the “insider” as author since “authority” cannot by all means misrepresent his/her own cultural traditions. She/he is the sole provider of “enlightenment” about her/his cultural traditions.

In the Bicol region in the Philippines, the Bicolanos perform the pagpaparigo ki Ama (the bathing of the Father) ⁷ every Good Friday. In this bathing ritual,

“[A]s many people as can crowd around, lift the prone image complete with bedclothes from the glass box in which it lies, and place it gently on a table nearby. Layers of wraps are removed, and petition letters fall rustling to the ground. A new outfit is selected for the Ama, from his wardrobes full of donated clothes. The Ama’s outer clothes are removed, revealing the image, with its realistically painted wounds and pallid skin. The women bathing the image sponge down his whole body carefully but rather proprietorially, changing his underwear discreetly beneath a towel” (Cannell 1999: 173 – 174)

When asked about this performance, the Bicolanos attribute it as a mere mimicry of Hispanic (Roman) Catholicism. This community believes that they do not have culture worthy of discussion. They are convinced that everything about them has been devastated by colonialism(s). These people “are uninterested in constructing and promoting a closed notion of their own ‘culture.’ (Cannell 3). However, Fenella Cannell, a British social anthropologist (an “outsider”), sees it otherwise. Manalansan (2003) explains that Cannell sees the act of imitation not as colonial mimicry but a sort of historical continuum of the indigenous performative traditions. Cannell sees the Bicolano performance traditions as something where power works asymmetrically, “but always dynamic and capable of change and negotiation” (25). In her critique on this community’s performances of Catholicism, she argues that Catholicism has shaped “the ambivalence of Filipino relationships to the spirit world (..)” and that this relationship reveals “crucial ways in which Bicolanos have resisted some of the implications of Christian conversion and the economy of salvation” (25 – 6).

Perhaps, the cliché (idiom) “familiarity breeds contempt” has a sense after all. Like the Bicolano people (as “insiders”), have become too familiar with their performative activities and thus becoming part of their “common-sensicals.” Vincent G. Potter (1994) explains that the “common-sensibles” are not always given attention. This is probably why Bicolanos tend to disassociate culture into their performative activities. Kenneth T. Gallagher (1986) elicits that all individuals are culturally wired. Borrowing from Gabriel Marcel, he argues that individuals are “being-in-situation.” Our understanding of the world is always “in situation” with our own historicity. Probably, this may explain why the Bicolano people for instance in Cannell’s ethnography do not see their culture as something which signifies a historical continuum because of their situated-ness of the “now” as deeply rooted in Roman Catholicism. Cannell also points out that these people consider themselves as “tayong mayo-mayo” or “those who have nothing” (literally meaning very poor) affects the way they perceive their culture. As Cannell asserts, about 85% of these people are not formally educated. Cannell, being a social anthropologist sees something else beyond that of a mere veneration of a Roman Catholic icon. Pico Iyer (in Manalansan 2003) also an “outsider,” does not share the same sentiment with Cannell. He argues almost analogously with the claims of the Bicolanos:

“Filipino is a sad, almost pathetic, copy of the American, an empty cultural shell devastated by Spanish and American colonialism (…) Filipinos are virtuoso performers of American culture, they are left with the dubious heritage of disco, rock and roll, and the beauty pageant. In other words Filipinos have nothing substantive to show except shallow features of American popular culture (12).”

Objectivity and subjectivity should not be thought as problems in cultural criticisms. Whether someone is an “insider” or an “outsider” of a particular culture, he or she is capable of shedding intelligent reflections about the phenomenon. As encountered in the above example about the Bicolanos, it is always a matter of positionality (Gallagher 1986). Whether Asian or non-Asian, in studying cultural performances in Asia, perception leading to understanding is always twofold: “the way we look at the object and the way the object presents itself to us” (Potter: 94). It is therefore impossible to really immerse oneself in a completely objective stance. There is, therefore, no singular or unified description on a particular cultural phenomenon. Even “insiders” themselves see an object (i.e. ritual) differently as it also reveals itself differently to individuals. As Potter suggests, it is this epistemological variant that judgment is always critical (sic, objective) yet very individual. The object of enquiry is always open to several streams.

For instance, William Peterson (2007) conducted research on the pugutan (beheading) ritual of the Moriones Festival⁸ in the Philippines and perceives this as the politics of the state. Danillo L. Mandia (2002) in his master’s thesis on the same ritual does not see the impact of the state in the religious efficacy of the performance. Most recently, Bryan Viray (2010) in his undergraduate thesis sees the tension of the state and the religious institution in the dynamism of the ritual performance.

Doreen Fernandez (1996) and Nicanor G. Tiongson (1999) are Philippine theatre specialists. Although I am indebted to both Fernandez and Tiongson towards my understanding of Philippine theatre, I do not share their assertion about komedya⁹ deserving of recognition as a national theatre form. Both argue that through time this Hispanic theatre form was Filipinized (translated and adopted to local flavours) thus making it the best candidate for national theatre form. I argue elsewhere (see Tiatco 2009) that it cannot be such due to its Roman Catholic orientation. Komedya is about the politics, agenda and discourse of the Roman Catholic Church whence the Philippines is not completely Catholic. Fernandez, Tiongson and myself are “insiders” yet we do not share a common interpretation.

As mentioned earlier, “insiders” of a particular culture are like authors (Barthes 1997). As authors, they nourish their “books.” As “insiders,” we nourish our cultural traditions (sic, cultural performances). Like the pre-Barthian notion of the author, the author always “exists before it (the work/writing), suffers, lives for it”(123). Tradition is always invented, reinvented, and modified by the actors (human agents) and therefore, individuals exist before these traditions, suffer and live for it. But as Barthes (2007) explicates in another essay, the author’s work after writing becomes a text. Cultural performance is like a text. As a text, it is always “plural” (Barthes 2007: 84). Thus,

“a text is made of multiple writings, drawn from many cultures and entering into mutual relations of dialogue, parody, contestation, but there is one place where this multiplicity is focused and that place is the reader, not, as was hitherto said, the author. (…) We are now beginning to let ourselves be fooled no longer by the arrogant antiphrastical recriminations of good society in favour of the very thing it sets aside, ignores, smothers, or destroys; we know that to give writing its future, it is necessary to overthrow the myth: the birth of the reader must be at the cost of the death of the Author (Barthes 1997: 123).”

A cultural performance be it in Asia or anywhere else is made up of “multiple writings” therefore multiple meanings. As perceivers of this cultural performance, whether we are “insiders” or “outsiders,” we are all readers! Interpreting cultural performances in Asia by “Asians” is not a guarantee that “Asians” comprehensively “know” these phenomena. At the same time, it is not a guarantee that the “non-Asians” are more equipped with paradigms in describing and explaining these traditions. I am convinced that the human intellect has this infinite drive to learn almost about everything. However, it is limited that it can only learn so much. As “Asians,” I am certain that we are eager to understand our own traditions. Like the human intellect, we can only learn so much from these traditions. Our interpretations about these traditions (these performances) are always incomplete. The possibility of learning from the “non-Asians” (through dialogue perhaps) is also incremental in our appreciation and interpretation of our traditions (i.e. cultural performances).

NOTES:

1. My master’s thesis, Ang Ritwal ng Pagpapako sa Krus: Panata at Dulaan sa Bawat Turok ng Pako [The Ritual of the Nailing on the Cross: Faith and Theatre in Every Pierce of the Nail] (2006) was an ethnographic study of the nailing ritual held during Good Friday in my province, Pampanga.

2. Of all literature about Pampangan performative culture, American anthropologist Nicolas Barker’s (1998) ethnography was a comprehensive study on the self-flagellation and nailing ritual. Although Barker’s descriptions are overwhelming and detailed, I do not agree with his prime assertion that these rituals are continuations of Hispanic Catholicism’s concept of atonement.

3. Brandon edited the Cambridge Guide to Asian Theatre (1993). A professor emeritus at the University of Hawaii, Brandon is known for his expertise in Asian Theatre, particularly Japanese theatre.

4. Since its inception in 1984, Asian Theatre Journal (ATJ) has been published twice each year. ATJ is the official publication of the Association for Asian Performance, an organization whose members are mostly American theatre scholars and researchers. Its past editors are James Brandon (1984 – 1991) from the University of Hawaii and Samuel Leiter (1992 – 2004) from Brooklyn College, City University of New York. David Mason (2002) provides information about the articles and subjects published in ATJ from its first volume to the 19^th. About 80 percent of the published articles were written by non-Asians.

5. In an honours module at the National University of Singapore, I often hear my classmates argue that Western authors misrepresent Asian traditions. Usually, I hear them invoking the notion of exoticism as a catchphrase in criticizing these Western authors. In a graduate module also at the National University of Singapore, a classmate of mine reported on the book Theatre Histories: An Introduction as edited by Philip B. Zarilli et al (2006). Although admittedly that this book is an alternative to the uni-linear historical paradigm of previous theatre historians like Oscar Brockett and Leonard Pronko, he however denies the efficacy of the book due to the non-inclusion of what he called “Asian” perspective(s) in the discussion of Asian Theatre History. Again, there is an invocation that these authors apparently appear to know everything about us as Asians. In 2008, attending the Asian Theatre Working Group during the 51^st International Federation for Theatre Research in Seoul, scholars from the West (particularly the United States) were engaged in a debate regarding theatre paradigm with Asian scholars (especially those coming from Japan, India and Pakistan). A very important discourse highlighted in this debate was the sense of orientalism (See Said 2003).

6. A very good example is Reynaldo Ileto’s (1999) “Orientalism and the Study of Philippine Politics” where Ileto criticized Glenn May, Alfred McCoy and Benedict Anderson as cultural and social analysts whose views about Asia (especially about the Philippines) is similar to Said’s discourse of orientalism.

7. Ama / the Father refers to the dead Christ.

8. Peterson explains that the Moriones Festival is a local tradition in Marinduque, an island in the Philippines where men are dressed as Roman centurions and donning masks reputedly. The highlight of this festivity is the ritual of the pugutan, “in which the Roman soldier Longinus was chased through the streets of town by Morons and townspeople in the hours before noon on Easter Sunday, followed by his capture and mock beheading” (311).

9. Komedya was introduced by the Spaniards during the inquisition. Tiongson and Fernandez explain that it “is a colorful theatrical tradition whose plots revolve around the social, political, and religious conflicts between the Muslims and the Christians (specifically, Catholic) heroes” (in Tiatco 2009: 282). Today, it is presented in religious feast days of rural towns with the active participation and support of the Catholic community members.

WORKS CITED

Barker, Nicolas. 1998. “The Revival of Self-Flagellation and the Birth of Crucifixion in Lowland Christian Philippines.” Unpublished Discussion Paper.

Barthes, Roland. 1997. “The Death of the Author.” In Twentieth Century Literary Theory: A Reader, 2^nd edition, ed K.M. Newton, 120 – 123. New York: MacMillan Press Ltd.

_____________. 2003. “From Work to Text.” In The Cultural Studies Reader, ed. Simon During, 81 – 87. New York: Routledge.

Beeman, William O. 2002. “Tazi’yeh Performance Conventions: A Sketch.” Asian Society. http://www.asiasociety.org/arts-culture/performing-arts/theater/taziyeh-performance-conventions-a-short-sketch (accessed 20 August 2009).

Brandon, James R. 1993. Cambridge Guide to Asian Theatre. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Bronner, Simon J. 2005. “Contesting Tradition: The Deep Play and Protest of the Pigeon Shoots.” In Journal of American Folklore Volume 118 (Number 470): 409 – 452.

Cannell, Fenella. 1999. Power and Intimacy in the Christian Philippines. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Chun, Allen. 2000. “Imagining Asia-Pacific.” In Cultural Studies 14 (3 – 4): 565 – 592.

Dhareshwar, Vivek. 2007. “Valorizing the Present: Orientalism, Postcoloniality and the Human Sciences.” In Anthropology in Theory: Issues in Epistemology, eds. Henrietta L. Moore and Todd Sanders, 546 – 551. Massachusetts: Blacwell Publishing Ltd.

Endres, Kirsten W. 2006. “Spirit Performance and the Ritual Construction of Personal Identity in Modern Vietnam.” In Possessed by Spirits: Mediumship in Contemporary Vietnamese Communities, eds. Karen Fjelstad and Nguyen Thi Hien, 77 – 93. New York: Cornell Southeast Asia Program Publications.

Fajardo, Kale Bantigue. 2008. “Transportation: Translating Filipino and Filipino American Tomboy Masculinities Through Global Migration and Seafaring.” In GLQ: Journal of Lesbian and Gay Studies 14 (2 – 3): 403 – 424.

Fernandez, Doreen. 1996. Palabas: Essays on Philippine Theatre History. Quezon City: Ateneo de Manila University Press.

Gallagher, Kenneth T. 1986. The Philosophy of Knowledge. New York: Fordham University Press.

Ileto, Reynaldo. 1999. “Orientalism and the Study of Philippine Politics.” In Philippines Studies, Occasional Papers Series No. 13: 41 – 65.

Joaquin, Nick. 2004. Culture and History. Pasig City: Anvil Publishing House, Inc.

Kindt, Julia. 2009. “On Tyrant Property Turned Ritual Object: Political Power and Sacred Symbols in Ancient Greece and in Social Anthropology.” In Arethusa 42 (3): 211 – 250.

Latrell, Craig. 1999. “Widening the Circle: The Refiguring of West Sumatran Randai.” In Asian Theatre Journal 16 (2): 248 – 259.

___________. 2008. “Exotic Dancing: Performing Tribal and Regional Identities in East Malaysia’s Cultural Villages.” In TDR: The Drama Review 52 (4): 41 – 63.

Legasto, Priscelina P. 2004. “Introduction: Discourses of “Worlding” and Philippine Postcolonial Studies.” In Philippine Postcolonial Studies: Essays on Language and Literature, eds. Priscelin Patajo-Legasto & Cristina Pantajo-Hidalgo. Quezon City: University of the Philippines Press.

Li, Victor. 2001. “Marshall Sahlins and the Apotheosis of Culture.” In CR: the New Centennial Review 1 (3): 201 – 287.

Manalansan, Martin F. 2003. Global Divas: Filipino Gay Men in the Diaspora. Durham: Duke University Press.

Mandia, Danillo L. 2002. “Moryon: Panata sa Likuran ng Maskara” [Moryon: Faith Behind the Mask]. Unpublished M.A. Thesis. Quezon City: University of the Philippines Diliman.

Mason, David V. 2002. “Comprehensive Index to Asian Theatre Journals: Vols. 1 – 19.” In Asian Theatre Journal 19 (2): 261 – 351.

Ness, Sally Ann. 1992. Body, Movement, and Culture: Kinesthetic and Visual Symbolism in a Philippine Community. Philadelphia: University of Philadephia Press.

Pecora, Vincent P. 2007. “Culture as Theatre / Culture as Belief.” In Criticism 49 (4): 505 – 534.

Peterson, William. 2007. “Holy Week in the “Heart of the Philippines”: Spirituality, Theatre, and Community in Marinduque’s Moriones Festival.” In Asian Theatre Journal 24 (2): 309 – 337.

Potter, Vincent G. 1994. On Understanding Understanding: Philosophy of Knowldege. New York: Fordham University Press.

Said, Edward W. 2003. Orientalism. London: Penguin Classics.

Sakai, Naoki. 2000. “You Asians – on the Historical Role of the West and Asia Binary.” In We Asians’ Between Past and Present, eds. Kwok Kianwoon et al, 212 – 246. Singapore: Singapore Heritage Society.

Tiatco, Sir Anril P. 2006. “Ang Ritwal ng Pagpapako sa Krus: Panata at Dulaan sa Bawat Turok ng Pako” [The Ritual of Nailing on the Cross: Faith and Theatre in Every Pierce of the Nail]. Unpublished M.A. Thesis. Quezon City: University of the Philippines Press.

______________. 2009. “Postscript to University of the Philippines Komedya Fiesta 2008: Prelude to a Discourse on a National Theatre.” In Asian Theatre Journal 26 (2): 281 – 302.

Tillis, Steve. 2003. “East, West, and World Theatre.” In Asian Theatre Journal 20 (1): 71 – 87.

Tiongson, Nicanor G. 1999. Komedya: Philippine Theatre History and Anthology, Volume 2. Quezon City: University of the Philippines Press.

Viray, Bryan L. 2010. “Ritwal ng Putong sa Boac, Marinduque: Pagtatanghal ng Pagpapagaling, Pagpupuri at Pagpapasalamat” [Ritwal of Putong in Boac, Marinduque: Performance of Healing, Veneration and Thanksgiving]. Unpublished B.A. Thesis. Quezon City: University of the Philippines Diliman.

Zarilli, Philip et al. 2006. Theatre Histories: An Introduction. New York: Routledge.