PERFORMATIIVNE PÖÖRE
Performative Turn

Summary/Abstract: The article discusses the spread of the performative approach in human and social studies, placing it in the context of what might be called academic boredom due to the linguistic, or textual turn, of the genre mixing of cultural and social studies, and the general rise of interest towards the construction of identities and traditions. While one can notice a large variety of definitions, methods and aims as regards the study of performances in different fields, the integrity and identity of the „turn” relies mainly on the key-texts and authors, out of whom the new approach has constructed its forerunners. Therefore, firstly an overview of the historiographical autobiography of the performative turn is given. This includes the 1940-50s’ dramaturgical approach in sociology and anthropology (Kenneth Burke, Victor Turner, Erving Goffman), the theory of „performative utterances” in linguistics (John Austin), as well as the broader stimulus coming from ritual theory and postmodern cultural anthropology (Clifford Geertz). However, while the earlier tradition mainly relied on terms such as theatre, drama and script, the new approach prefers the notion „performance”, which indicates a significant re-conceptualisation of these phenomena. Rather than arguing for culturally constructed (social) dramas and scripts, much greater emphasis is put on the role of improvisation and context. Thus an overview is given of the recent analyses of performances, focusing mainly on such fields as sociology, political theory, history of ideas, mnemohistory, history, theatre and performance studies, as well as the traditional fields of cultural history. Also, the first few indications of this approach in Estonian cultural studies are briefly pointed out. In general one might argue that the central focus and points of interest of the performative turn seem to follow the footsteps of the key-topics of the humanities today, focusing on performances of power, identity, gender, tradition and memory. Finally the article touches upon some problems the new approach has entailed. Although many scholars have pointed out the threat of an ambiguous or circular use of the notion „performance”, it is the plural and flexible use of the term that seems to be the main driving force behind the turn, which has, after all, opened up many new fruitful perspectives. Also the issue of source criticism has been debated widely, which on the one hand reflects the critical reflection of the (colonial) theory especially regarding the interpretation of „primitive” rituals, and, on the other hand, brings the performative turn back onto the threshold of the linguistic turn, as there is no escape of the fact that it is, to a great extent, the narratives of the performances that we are studying.

• Details
• Contents