Alexander approaches the concept of power through cultural pragmatics, in which social action is a social performance. Our social actions are a performance used to communicate with an audience. The meaning of the actions doesn’t matter, all that matters is how the audience interprets them. The success of an actor is determined by whether or not he can (consciously or unconsciously) control how others receive his message. In order for people to believe he message, he has to deliver it not as a script, which can seem forced or fake, but as something real. He has to come across as authentic so they identify with him, connect emotionally with him, and finally they’ll believe him and his message.
For every performance, there are certain elements that are needed. This includes (1) an actor, which can be an individual, group, or organization. (2) A collective representation (not really sure how to explain this one) says that “every speech is a play upon the variations of a background structure, the collective representations that define the symbolic references for every speech act” (180). (3) A means of symbolic production says the actor needs a stage to communicate, which could be a newspaper, television, etc. (4) Mise-en-scene “is the arranging, and the doing, of actors’ movements in time and space” (181). (5) Social power can be “resources, capacities, and hierarchies, but it involves also the power to project hermeneutical interpretations of performance from outside political and economic power in the narrow sense” (181). Finally, the (6) audience is important because without it all of the social performance is wasted.
Successful social performances have some requirements. The script has to be simple enough that the audience can understand the meaning. The component parts have to be invisible, or else the action will seem false. “Everything must appear to be created for the here and now…to seem authentic” (181). The audience must identify with the actor. The actor is much more understood and believed in a simpler society where it is easier for the audience to relate.
Alexander says that it isn’t a coincidence that theatre develops along with publicly empowered citizens. It is a great resource for the empowered to coerce with. They “assume powerful scripts, great actors, compliant audiences, corrupted or brainwashed journalists, and bought-off critics” (184). They control all aspects of the society (“law, school books, movies, political campaigns, or wars” (184)). He states further in the reading that dictatorships control in this way.
To defeat this power, audiences must be skeptical of the performances. They must create their own counter-performances. Democracy is an example of this because it keeps any single actor from dominating the stage. “Power corrupts, but in differentiated and fragmented social orders it is very difficult for power to corrupt absolutely “ (186).
Thursday, April 2, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
While reading this essay, I immediately began comparing the words of Jeffrey C. Alexander to what I see on television. Actors have to take their lines, and their expressions, and learn to use them in a way that is effective. They have to be able to convey messages and feelings. They need to be able to reach those people who are viewing their program or movie. Like Alexander said, it does not truly matter what the real meaning is, but how the actor’s actions are interpreted. What the audience takes away from the show or movie is what is most important. And of course, this all is completely true. Someone can go on stage and do their thing, but if it does not relate to me, their actions, in my opinion, are meaningless.
How often are we watching a movie and an actor will say something and you find yourself saying “no one talks like that,” or “how cheesy.” When there is no connection made between the actor and the audience, the actor has failed. They need to make their role seem as real and authentic as possible. They need to act in a way that people do in real life. Alexander said, which is true, that when the performance is not believable and there is no connection made, the critics appear. People are critiquing and scrutinizing every aspect of the actor’s character.
Starting around pg 184, Alexander starts to lose me on what his point is. But basically, an actor’s performance will determine the amount of power they have. A great performance = more power. A bad performance= less power. What determines the power is the reaction of the audience. We must be skeptics and critique the performances.
Alexander was slightly difficult to read and his constant references to theatrics left in the dust because I have no knowledge of the subject but I did get the basic meaning of his essay. Alexander talks about how actors have scripts and have to perform to a certain extent using themselves and not just their emotions or else the actor wouldn’t come off as genuine. To me this translates to people being the actors and social institutions making the scripts for the people to follow.
The powerful and institutions of a society set up the rules, norms, folkways, taboos, and people abide by these rules. People abide by this script. But people are still people and not completely controlled by society and therefore can still be themselves while abiding by this “script” which is societies. It reminded me of the Stanford Prison experiment whereas the guards and prisoners still acted like guards and prisoners but acted as variations of them in accordance with who they were.
This essay also touched on how the powerful use this to get the public’s favor. They have actors they use to portray their agenda. These actors abide by these people’s script but also add in their human element to trick the people into thinking that they are sincere and genuine and human.
Post a Comment