Postmodernism and My Research

My research interest centers on the study of Muslim cultural image as represented in Philippine Theater. One of the methods of research I would like to employ is looking into three or five plays that have been staged in the Philippines with different means of dealing with the Muslim culture. Among them, so far, is PETA’s Ang Paglalakbay ni Radiya Mangandiri, Tanghalang Pilipino’s Madonna Brava, Our Lady if Arlegui by Chris Martinez, and Rizal at Blumentritt by Job Pagsibigan. I have yet to identify other methods to be employed in accomplishing this research. Some of the methods I am considering to use are mentioned below as I reflect upon this week’s readings, namely: Fredric Jameson’s Postmodernism, Or the Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism and Jean-Francois Lyotard’s The Postmodern Condition.

Taking into consideration Frederic Jameson’s Postmodernism, he discussed that postmodernism is cultural dominant manifestation of the late capitalism characterized by the fragmentation of the subject as apparent in the aesthetic productions reflecting the socio-economic structure of the society in that period i.e. commodification. As seen in the works of Warhol, there is a loss of historicalness in subject matter that made aesthetic productions a ‘pastiche’ or a parody of the past. This has brought a crisis in historicity and a question in the ‘temporal organization’ of postmodern works. He writes:

“The subject has lost its capacity actively to extend its pro-tensions and re-tensions across the temporal manifold, and to organize its past and future into coherent experience, it becomes difficult enough to see how the cultural productions of such a subject could result in anything but ‘heaps of fragments’ and in a practice of the randomly heterogeneous and fragmentary and the aleatory.”

In terms of research, this has given me the stimulus to continue my study on the history of the Muslim-Christian conflict in the Philippines as background. This is in order to gain a more historical perspective in viewing Muslim cultural representation in Philippine Theater. This will give my research a more coherent organization in time. Furthermore, Jameson discussed that in late capitalism is characterized there is a blurring of borders or spatial differentiation. In this sense, I am more certain in using a cross-disciplinary approach in my research through a review of principles and literature from other fields aside from theater. This method will help situate my understanding of the plays and not just consider them a sporadic ‘fragments’ in time.

Jean-Francois Lyotard in his The Postmodern Condition advocated a free access to information in order to produce new knowledge or information through an active and imaginative quest for anomalies in current theories. With the advent of the internet and cyberspace, this might as well be the answer to his call. This desire to seek new answers to old questions strengthens my belief that cross-disciplinary is not only in the rise but it is necessary in the field of study.  

       

Reflection 2: On Discourse Analysis

Reading Jean-Francois Lyotard’s The Postmodern Condition and Fredric Jameson’s Postmodernism, Or the Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism, I appreciate how they explore and investigate concepts, phenomenon and subjects across disciplines: visual arts, architecture, literature, music, linguistics, education, science, culture and politics either by deconstruction or confirmation with other theories. Where different theories meet and depart are maximized to provide new ways of interpreting or seeing the concepts and subject matters. Having listed the plays Information for Foreigners, Mrs. B and Ang mga Lorena as pieces for my investigation with their common character being recent plays in Manila that tackle human rights violation, varied concepts or topics opened-up which are interesting to explore: space, violence (state violence, implied violence and dramatic violence as a communication tool), power of language and legislative theater, search for sanctuary, family and dislocation, terror as a documentary spectacle, utopia in performance, committed drama, postdramatic theater and links between global terrorism and extrajudicial killings and disappearances in the Philippines. In turn, these concepts/topics call for exploring theories that may support or counter them as presented in the plays, both in text and performance. I think such Discourse Analysis as of Lyotard and Jameson is a way of approaching my future research though Conceptual Analysis and Relational Analysis are helpful steps to taking the Discourse. My argument could border on the representation of space, violence, dislocation and language in the given plays. Thus, besides grounding on dramatic theories of Brecht, Boal, Artaud, Hans-Thies Lehmann and Max Reinhardt and dramatic criticisms of Mathew Buckley and Jill Dolan, I also need to explore on theories of visual arts (space), language (communication), politics (policy on peace and violence) and anthropology (violence as a phenomenon).

Theater is a Bastard Art

"Theater is a bastard art," one of my professors once said in our Theater History graduate class. It is an amalgamation of all the other arts – literature, visual arts, music, dance, and even multimedia arts. It is for this reason that it usually develops last in terms of movement in the arts. It has a rich and long history and tradition that extends way back into pre-historic rituals. But what is interesting to note is how the theatrical tradition arrived from that prehistoric period to its present day practice.

In my relatively few years of practicing in the theater as an actor, I have come across numerous studies on the craft of acting. One that struck me the most is Stanislavsky’s Method of Acting. It comes as no surprise that he is known as the ‘Father of Modern Acting,’ after all he was the first to place a systematic process into the practice of acting, which is still studied and applied to this day. The manner by which he arrived at this system reminds me of the method described by Descartes in his ‘Discourse on the Method for Reasoning.’  Stanislavsky was seeking a means to consistently recreate the more inspired performances that he observed from his favorite actors. He was unsatisfied by whatever was written about acting during his time. He broke down the acting process from preparation to performance and studied it carefully until he is able to arrive at what he deems a method to an inspired or truthful performance. He worked on exercises to develop the actor's imagination and how to work within the given circumstances of the play. He developed activities to cultivate and access sense and emotional memory to help the actor create a performance that is as much as possible consistent and closer to the truth of the character. He was primarily working on making the internal emotions bring out the truth of the character portrayed by the actor.

Despite the fact that he was able to come up with this initial system, he was still unsatisfied with his own theories and continued researching and questioning his findings. In the latter part of his career, he was developing his ‘Methods of Physical Action,’ which is in somehow in contrast to his initial method of acting. He proposed that external actions may also help develop the internal emotional being of the character. He was working from the outside in. This theory was developed by future other great theater theorists like Grotowski in his Experimental Theater and Meyerhold's Biomechanics.

There are similar instances in the history of theater and its theories that various principles would come about and the next generation will react to it either positively or negatively. The end product is a new theory in performance that only pushed the boundaries of theater studies. This constant construction and deconstruction of ideas are important in the study and development of theater. The Theatre Libre of Andre Antoine was formed in his desire to bring theater into a more naturalistic practice. Artaud's Theater of Cruelty was initiated by the surrealist formation in reaction to rationalism. Without the ever evolving ideas toward theater and performance, we might not have the theater we right now.

It should be encouraged that all scholars and practitioners of theater must always continue challenging ideas and principles that preceded them. Not matter how ridiculous or far-fetched it may be. Even if they go against existing theater theories. The same way the Feyerabend advocates an anything goes approach to theories. Otherwise, how could we have possibly come about what we now call as The Theater of the Absurd, which defies logic and common sense. 

Theater thrives in the combination, deconstruction, reconstruction and alteration of the different arts. It constantly challenges conventions and traditions to come up with a theater that is more now and alive. Future thinkers would be wise to follow suit. 


Theater is a bastard art. That is what my professor said. It may hold true. Or maybe I might just challenge it. 

Reflection on Methods

Rene Descarte shared his own method of seeking truth for the benefit of understanding science, mathematics, theology, human relations and the arts. He proposed to observe the following steps: (1) Never to accept anything for true which one did not clearly know to be such; (2) Divide one’s specimen into as many parts as possible and as might be necessary for its adequate solution; (3) Conduct one’s thoughts from the simplest… to the more complex; and (4) Make enumerations complete. (Discourse on Method Part II, 1637). As I understand his proposal, a research work starts with an individual question and is motivated by a search for something such as change. This single spark can open up many possibilities by which the researcher ought to organize through an outlining system, for example from general to specific and by given definitions of past works. According to him, it is easier to start with the simplest objects and concepts then explore on the more complex. One ought to aim for the completion of thought and that no information is left without supporting details or justifications. He cited such method to be a contribution to development and not to hurt any by taking into consideration the available truths and concepts and what are not being presented as one can observe. Observation can start with a personal interest then aided with a responsibility of judgment. He cited for example the difference in aesthetics and utility of an architecture freely planned out by a single architect than those which were laid out by several men. One is especially built with the intention of creating something new and useful while the other is built on old foundations or structure. A person who grows in France or Germany may grow a different person when one is in China. The environment and underlying structures around affects such person. Spontaneous change can happen as one may observe but a researcher can either stick with the old foundations or create a new one. The strength in Descarte’s method is one founded on feasibility from an assessment of individual capacity. In Paul Feyerabend's Against Method (1975), he mentioned that science and myth overlap in many ways and that a science that insists on possessing the only correct method and the only acceptable results is of a dogmatic. He proposed that one can approach a problem in many ways and not just in one. In his idea of “anything goes”, “distinction between a context of discovery and a context of justification and disregarding the distinction between observational terms and theoretical terms can be abolished” and that “proliferation of theories is beneficial for science while uniformity impairs its critical power. Uniformity also endangers the free development of the individual”. In this method, one can freely explore concepts, thoughts and meanings. I do not prescribe to the idea however that “there is no idea, however ancient or absurd, that is not capable of improving our knowledge”. Putting to context that some ideas are constructed merely as subordinates to another, such can actually stunt its constituents while another enjoy from its exploit. However, I understand this method encourages the exploration of truth by means of using “constructed” ideas, concepts and images and constructing them to pave way for new meanings. While it is based on anarchy, I think it has a direction, in a way, with the idea of ultimately constructing new meanings. With guided use, this method can be used in my research.#