Critical Positions

editorial Critical Positions This issue finds PAJ in a contemplative mood, gathering thoughts into a series of essays on issues that dominate not only our aesthetic life but our political life as well: history, modernity, gender, power, nuclear war, elections , tradition. It happened quite by chance that when all the essays fell into place, they echoed each other's concerns. On this election eve we all are aware that the course the country takes will set the tone of American cultural life for the rest of the century. It is natural now to be reflecting on the patterns of this century, and clearly, the idea of the modern is central to that inquiry. All around us we see arguments for or against modernity-from artists, from politicians, from religious orders, from countries around the world. The idea of modernity-what constitutes it and by whose decree?-is what this issue explores, to a great degree: modernism in relation to the classical tradition, to technological progress, to interpretation, to self-awareness. But the writers in this issue are asking if we shouldn't slow down a bit and question the century-long struggle between classic ideals and modern exigency , between received ideas and new visions, between ruling ideologies and aesthetics. The study of theatre itself stands at this crossroads: how in a sense, can it be modernized and still honor its history? In many places students, faculty, and professionals are asking: What is its purpose? Is it too professionalized ? Has technique displaced scholarship in the training? What is the relationship of the theatre curriculum to a liberal arts education? What kind of theatre life do we want? We have asked these and other questions in 4 several recent issues (PAJ 26/27, 30, 31). Our "Backtalk" section in this issue continues the discussion.In The Drama Review Richard Schechner has also written several "Comment" pieces on the education theme. Obviously , it is of paramount concern when journals in the field begin to question the drift of the profession. In the current issue of TDR (#119) Schechner puts forth what he calls the "Broad Spectrum Approach." Briefly, he calls for restructuring the university around a "core curriculum" that would include expanding beyond the training of "performance workers" and the Western tradition of drama and dance, namely, in courses that "show how performance is a key paradigm" in world cultures through the ages. He includes in performance-of which he calls theatre a "subgenre"-rituals, sports, healing, and performance in everyday life. Finally, he proposes that "performance studies specialists" be placed in theatre and dance, English, women's studies, communications , anthropology, and popular culture departments, among others. Schechner takes the position that it is necessary to show how performance is used in politics, medicine, religion, face-to-face interaction. We disagree with this purportedly "broad spectrum" proposition on several grounds, only a few of which can be enumerated here. Perhaps the most important of them is that his approach shifts performance to the realm of the social sciences, rather than that of art. To make performance a means of cultural analysis is to substitute a kind of Performancism for Marxism in the analysis of societies and their means of production. The twentieth century has taught us plenty about ideology and the arts in the guise of a benign cultural politics. Secondly, Schechner offers no secure place for the dramatic text in his "broad spectrum" of things. Like it or not, the main purpose of theatre is founded on the staging of texts, just as the main purpose of the music world is to acknowledge the playing and singing of musical texts. One cannot get around this by referring to theatre as a subgenre of "performance" and elevating "performance studies" to a discipline. (One can compare it to the uneasy field of "American Studies"-is it History, Literature, Folklore? An entirely made-up field looking for justification of its existence, it too is trying to be pluralistic-here one can just as well study or write on quilts, postcards, the Catskills, or parades.) These kinds of "studies" cut knowledge up into too many pieces, making academic life look sillier and sillier. Thirdly, we cannot...