Dance with a Stranger: Torque Show’s Intimacy (2014) and the Experience of Vulnerability in Performance and Spectatorship

  • Matt HargraveEmail author


This chapter investigates the meaning of vulnerability in relation to performance. It argues that performance as vulnerability/vulnerability as performance is a shifting dynamic rather than a simple binary. Utilising a single case study—the physical theatre work Intimacy by Michelle Ryan and Torqueshow—this chapter argues that performance itself can critique of such binaries because it asks the spectator to engage in the intimate sphere, always an intersubjective realm, not an either/or one of fixed identity positions. Extending the implications of both critical disability studies and care ethics, this chapter is a call for a poetics of vulnerability. It argues that vulnerability is an interruptive value, both socially (because it upsets the myth of the autonomous self) and aesthetically (since it opens up the closed aesthetic artefact); that it invites spectators’ complicity; that vulnerability reavows structural support; and that it places both fixed identity and fixed judgement in doubt.


  1. Ahmed, Sara. 2010. Happy Objects. In The Affect Theory Reader, ed. Melissa Gregg and Gregory J. Seigworth, 29–51. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  2. AQA (Artistic Quality Assessment) Report, quoted in personal correspondence with Jo Verrent, senior producer, Unlimited (14 June 2014).Google Scholar
  3. Baugh, Bruce. 1988. Authenticity Revisited. The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 46 (4): 477–487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Berlant, Lauren. 1998. Intimacy: A Special Issue. Critical Inquiry 24 (2): 281–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Butler, Judith. 2009. Frames of War: When Is Life Grievable? London: Verso.Google Scholar
  6. Davidson, Michael. 2008. Concerto for the Left Hand: Disability and the Defamiliar Body. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Gilson, Erinn. 2013. The Ethics of Vulnerability: A Feminist Analysis of Social Life and Practice. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  8. Hadley, Bree. 2014. Disability, Public Space Performance and Spectatorship: Unconscious Performers. London: Palgrave.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hall, Stuart. 1987. Texts About Handsworth Songs by Salman Rushdie, Stuart Hall, Darcus Howe, Isaac Julien & Kobena Mercer.
  10. Hargrave, Matt. 2015. Theatres of Learning Disabilty. London: Palgrave.Google Scholar
  11. Harvie, Jen. 2014. Fair Play—Art Performance and Neoliberalism. London: Palgrave.Google Scholar
  12. Jackson, Shannon. 2011. Social Works: Performing Art, Supporting Publics. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  13. Phillips, Adam. 1994. On Flirtation. London: Faber & Faber.Google Scholar
  14. Probyn, Elspeth. 2010. Writing Shame. In The Affect Theory Reader, eds. Melissa Gregg and Gregory J. Seigworth, 71–92. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Shildrick, Margrit. 2009. Dangerous Discourses of Disability, Subjectivity and Sexuality. London: Palgrave.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Siebers, Tobin. 2010. Disability Aesthetics. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Žižek, Slavoj. 2014. Event: Philosophy in Transit. London: Penguin.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of NorthumbriaNewcastle-upon-TyneUK

Personalised recommendations