The Anthropology of Performance (II)
According to Turner, the unbalance of the psychic life gave rise to the conflict, the dialectics between fixed norm -tradition and convention- and free individuality -the dynamics of the present- all of which he called 'Social Drama'. Out of this social drama interpreted by free man (Homo performans) were born the performative genres (ritual, carnival, literature, cinema, etc). From this perspective drama would be the origin of culture.
For Steiner, the balance of man's inner world meant his access to freedom. [9] But in freedom man trascended his inner demons which gave rise to tragedy. All of which implied the following: Would Steiner's access to freedom imply, from the philosophic-historical approach of Turner, the end of social drama and the regenerating process of culture?
The important for Turner was not the question of man's freedom but to approach the dynamics of the generating process of sense in the psychic chaos of individual thought, feeling and will. This social drama renewed culture but did not make man free. [10]
Freedom, Steiner's fundamental question, was the result of the balance, the harmony of the soul's inner world. According to him, this access to freedom led to a superior level of conscience: the universal culture whose reflection at the artistic level of human drama he called "the tragedy of karma". [11] The theme of this tragedy would be the learning process of the causes and the effects wich configured the cosmic trajectory or 'reincarnation' of the human soul. In conclusion, if for Turner the engine of culture was the existencial conflict of free individual in fight against the established order, for Steiner on the contrary the dynamics of history developed themselves at the cosmic scale and their dynamic principle was the Goethean notion of metamorphosis (evolution-involution). For Steiner this principle was hidden behind the enigma of reincarnation and molded the individual karma.
Recapitulating, the basis of our approach is the notion of Performance: the free individual capable of performing his inner world (thought, feeling and will) and expressing his own vision of the world which leads to a confrontation with conventional cultural norm (establishment). [12] For Turner, out of this conflict or social drama arises the process that regenerates the dynamics of culture. However, come to this point, it is necessary to precise the limits of knowledge which forcefully determine the limits of culture.
Regarding the opposition structure-fixed norm Vs. process-performance, which is the the axis of Turner's article, and going on with the development of the linguistic model competence-performance proposed by Noam Chomsky, it is necessary to precise that, according to Steiner's 'ethical individualism' each individual may know and have access to the highest universal reality. This reverts to say that free man carries in himself the total cosmic reality inasmuch as 'competence'.
For Steiner, the balance of man's inner world meant his access to freedom. [9] But in freedom man trascended his inner demons which gave rise to tragedy. All of which implied the following: Would Steiner's access to freedom imply, from the philosophic-historical approach of Turner, the end of social drama and the regenerating process of culture?
The important for Turner was not the question of man's freedom but to approach the dynamics of the generating process of sense in the psychic chaos of individual thought, feeling and will. This social drama renewed culture but did not make man free. [10]
Freedom, Steiner's fundamental question, was the result of the balance, the harmony of the soul's inner world. According to him, this access to freedom led to a superior level of conscience: the universal culture whose reflection at the artistic level of human drama he called "the tragedy of karma". [11] The theme of this tragedy would be the learning process of the causes and the effects wich configured the cosmic trajectory or 'reincarnation' of the human soul. In conclusion, if for Turner the engine of culture was the existencial conflict of free individual in fight against the established order, for Steiner on the contrary the dynamics of history developed themselves at the cosmic scale and their dynamic principle was the Goethean notion of metamorphosis (evolution-involution). For Steiner this principle was hidden behind the enigma of reincarnation and molded the individual karma.
Recapitulating, the basis of our approach is the notion of Performance: the free individual capable of performing his inner world (thought, feeling and will) and expressing his own vision of the world which leads to a confrontation with conventional cultural norm (establishment). [12] For Turner, out of this conflict or social drama arises the process that regenerates the dynamics of culture. However, come to this point, it is necessary to precise the limits of knowledge which forcefully determine the limits of culture.
Regarding the opposition structure-fixed norm Vs. process-performance, which is the the axis of Turner's article, and going on with the development of the linguistic model competence-performance proposed by Noam Chomsky, it is necessary to precise that, according to Steiner's 'ethical individualism' each individual may know and have access to the highest universal reality. This reverts to say that free man carries in himself the total cosmic reality inasmuch as 'competence'.
posted by the captain at 8:26 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home