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 19th. 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 51st 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, 2nd 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.
