Advertisement

The problem with performativity: comments on the contributions

  • Erik RingmarEmail author
Original Article

Abstract

This article provides a critical assessment of the contributions to this special issue. As these articles show, it is only once we take theatrical metaphors seriously that what can start to understand international politics. The world really is a stage, on which states are the players. Yet the theoretical prejudices displayed in these articles obscure this fact rather than highlighting it. Poststructuralism, Butlerian theories of performativity, and actor-network theory are constitutionally incapable of discussing the theater. The reason is that real, theatrical, performances are events that audience members interpret by means of their bodies and their imagination.

Keywords

Performance theory Performativity Actor-network theory Social constructivism Embodiment Political imagination Judith Butler Bruno Latour 

References

  1. Abrahamsson, Sebastian, and Endre Dányi. 2018. Becoming Stronger by Becoming Weaker: The Hunger Strike as a Mode of Doing Politics. Journal of International Relations and Development.  https://doi.org/10.1057/s41268-018-0140-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson, Benedict. 2006. Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism, New ed. London: Verso.Google Scholar
  3. Austin, John L. 1962. How to Do Things with Words. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  4. Beer, Francis A., and Christ’l de Landtsheer (eds.). 2004. Metaphorical World Politics. East Lansing: Michigan State University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Bordo, Susan. 1992. Postmodern Subjects, Postmodern Bodies. Feminist Studies 18 (1): 159–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bueger, Christian. 2017. Performing Piracy: A Note on the Multiplicity of Agency. Journal of International Relations and Development.  https://doi.org/10.1057/s41268-017-0122-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Butler, Judith. 1988. Performative Acts and Gender Constitution: An Essay in Phenomenology and Feminist Theory. Theatre Journal 4: 519–531.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Butler, Judith. 1993. Bodies That Matter: On the Discursive Limits of Sex. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  9. Callon, Michel, and others. 2007. What Does it Mean to Say That Economics is Performative. Do Economists Make Markets, 311–357.Google Scholar
  10. Cook, Amy. 2007. Interplay: The Method and Potential of a Cognitive Scientific Approach to Theatre. Theatre Journal 59 (4): 579–594.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Damasio, Antonio R. 1994. Descartes’ Error: Emotion, Reason, and the Human Brain. New York: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
  12. Derrida, Jacques. 1982. Différance. In Margins of Philosophy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  13. Gallese, Vittorio. 2009. Mirror Neurons, Embodied Simulation, and the Neural Basis of Social Identification. Psychoanalytic Dialogues 19 (5): 519–536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Goffman, Erving. 1973. The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. Originally published in 1959. Woodstock: Overlook Press.Google Scholar
  15. Johnson, Mark. 2008. The Meaning of the Body: Aesthetics of Human Understanding. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  16. Kilembe, Davy. 2007. Chanson pour un plombier polonais. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ABySl1rQcA.
  17. Lakoff, George, and Mark Johnson. 1999. Philosophy in the Flesh: The Embodied Mind and its Challenge to Western Thought. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  18. Lakoff, George, and Mark Johnson. 2003. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Latour, Bruno. 1988. Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers Through Society. Revised ed. edition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Mol, Annemarie. 2010. Actor-Network Theory: Sensitive Terms and Enduring Tensions. Kölner Zeitschrift Für Soziologie Und Sozialpsychologie Sonderheft 50: 253–269.Google Scholar
  21. Noyes, Dorothy. 2018. Blaming the Polish Plumber: Phantom Agents, Invisible Workers, and the Liberal Arena. Journal of International Relations and Development.  https://doi.org/10.1057/s41268-017-0128-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Ringmar, Erik. 1996. On the Ontological Status of the State. European Journal of International Relations 2 (4): 439–466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Ringmar, Erik. 2012. Performing International Systems: Two East Asian Alternatives to the Westphalian Order. International Organization 66 (2): 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Ringmar, Erik. 2016a. How the World Stage Makes Its Subjects: An Embodied Critique of Constructivist IR Theory. Journal of International Relations and Development 19 (1): 101–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Ringmar, Erik. 2016b. Outline of a non-deliberative, mood-based, theory of action. Philosophia 45(4): 1527–1539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Rokotnitz, Naomi. 2008. ‘Too Far Gone in Disgust’: Mirror Neurons and the Manipulation of Embodied Responses in the Libertine. Configurations 16 (3): 399–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Rokotnitz, Naomi. 2010. ‘It Is Required/You Do Awake Your Faith’: Learning to Trust the Body Through Performing the Winter’s Tale. In Performance and Cognition: Theatre Studies and the Cognitive Turn, ed. Bruce A McConachie and F. Elizabeth Hart, 122. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  28. Searle, John R. 1983. Intentionality: An Essay in the Philosophy of Mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Searle, John R. 1989. How Performatives Work. Linguistics and Philosophy 12 (5): 535–558.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Sweetser, Eve. 2000. Blended Spaces and Performativity. Cognitive Linguistics 11 (3/4): 305–334.Google Scholar
  31. Turner, Victor W. 1975. Dramas, Fields, and Metaphors: Symbolic Action in Human Society. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Weber, Cynthia. 1998. Performative States. Millennium 27 (1): 77–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Wille, Tobias. 2017. Representation and Agency in Diplomacy: How Kosovo Came to Agree to the Rambouillet Accords. Journal of International Relations and Development.  https://doi.org/10.1057/s41268-017-0120-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Wolfers, Arnold. 1965. The Actors in International Politics. In Discord and Collaboration: Essays on International Politics. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Limited 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Political Science and International RelationsIbn Haldun UniversityIstanbulTurkey

Personalised recommendations