Enactivism and Performance Theory: Towards Interdisciplinarity Without Misunderstandings

• Authors: Yanna Popova

Title variants

PL

Enaktywizm a teoria performansu: Ku interdyscyplinarności bez nieporozumień

Abstracts

PL

Oglądanie widowiska o charakterze performatywnym jest szczególnym doświadczeniem partycypacyjnym, na które składają się ucieleśnienie i interaktywność. Jego znaczenie nie jest ani odbierane wprost, ani biernie obserwowane, lecz raczej odgrywane lub rekonstruowane w interaktywnym procesie zachodzącym między wykonawcą a widzem. Z takim obrazem widowiska performatywnego (przedstawienia teatralnego i innych form performatywnych) zgodziłoby się wielu badaczy. Co ważne, taki opis jest oparty na nowym, kompleksowym podejściu do ludzkiego poznania, określanym jako enakcja lub enaktywizm. Istnieją wyraźne podobieństwa między teorią performansu, wykorzystywaną w różnych dyscyplinach humanistyki (w tym w teatrologii), a najnowszymi osiągnięciami kognitywistyki. Te dwa obszary refleksji teoretycznej dzielą jednak równie istotne różnice, wynikające z ich genealogii. W swoich początkach performatyka opierała się na antropologii i pragmatyce filozoficznej. Enaktywizm zaś narodził się z efektywnego połączenia biologii, teorii systemów dynamicznych i fenomenologii. Celem artykułu jest przyjrzenie się temu, co wspólne i odmienne w obu domenach refleksji i wyjaśnienie pewnych nieporozumień, by w ten sposób otworzyć drogę do potencjalnych powiązań w przyszłości.

EN

Watching a performance is a particular kind of a participatory experience; moreover, it is one with constitutive embodied and interactive features, where a meaning is not simply received or passively observed but, rather, enacted or reconstituted in an interactive process between a performer and a spectator. This is a depiction of performance (theatrical or otherwise) that many scholars will agree with. It is also, and importantly, a description founded on a new and comprehensive approach to human cognition called enaction or enactivism. The similarities between performance theory, as used and applied in various branches of the humanities (including theatre studies), and the newest achievements of cognitive science are noticeable. Yet, there are also important differences that stem from the very genealogies of the respective theoretical fields. Performance studies rests on its beginnings in anthropology and philosophical pragmatics. Enactivism is the offspring of a fruitful union between biology, dynamic systems theory and phenomenology. The aim of this article is to look at what is common but also distinct in these two domains of thought and to clear up some misunderstandings, thus opening the door to potential connections in the future.

Keywords

PL

autopojeza; enaktywizm; asymetria interakcji; partycypacyjne tworzenie sensu; teoria performansu

EN

autopoiesis; enactivism; interaction asymmetry; participatory sense-making; performance theory

• Publisher: Polska Akademia Nauk. Instytut Sztuki PAN
• Journal: Pamiętnik Teatralny
• Year: 2025
• Volume: 74
• Issue: 2
• Pages: 67-85

Dates

published

2025

Contributors

author

Yanna Popova

• https://orcid.org/0009000752185595

References

• Austin, John Langshaw. How to Do Things with Words. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1962.
• Beach, Richard, and David Bloome, eds. Languaging Relations for Transforming the Literacy and Language Arts Classroom. New York: Routledge, 2019.
• Caracciolo, Marco. The Experientiality of Narrative: An Enactivist Approach. New York: De Gruyter Mouton, 2014.
• Carlson, Marvin. Performance: A Critical Introduction. New York: Routledge, 2004.
• Colombetti, Giovanna. “Enaction, Sense-Making, and Emotion.” In Enaction: Toward a New Paradigm for Cognitive Science.
• De Jaegher, Hanne, and Ezequiel Di Paolo. “Participatory Sense-Making: An Enactive Approach to Social Cognition.” Phenomenology and Cognitive Sciences 6, no. 4 (2007): 485‒507.
• Dewey, John. Art as Experience. New York: The Berkley Publishing Group, 1934.
• Di Paolo, Ezequiel, Elena Cuffari, and Hanne De Jaegher. Linguistic Bodies: The Continuity Between Life and Language. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 2018.
• Di Paolo, Ezequiel, Marike Rohde, and Hanne De Jaegher. “Horizons of the Enactive Mind: Values, Social Interaction and Play.” In Enaction: Toward a New Paradigm for Cognitive Science.
• Dufrenne, Mikel. The Phenomenology of Aesthetic Experience. Translated by Edward S. Casey. Evanston: Northwestern University Press, 1989.
• Fischer-Lichte, Erika. The Transformative Power of Performance: A New Aesthetics. Translated by Saskya Iris Jain. London: Routledge, 2008.
• Ingarden, Roman. Cognition of the Literary Work of Art. Translated by Ruth Ann Crowley and Kenneth Olsen. Evanston: Northwestern University Press, 1980.
• Jonas, Hans. The Phenomenon of Life: Toward a Philosophical Biology. New York: Harper and Row, 1966.
• Kemp, Richard. Embodied Acting. London: Routledge, 2012.
• Lakoff, George, and Mark Johnson. Philosophy in the Flesh: The Embodied Mind and Its Challenge to Western Thought. New York: Basic Books, 1999.
• Langacker, Roland. Cognitive Grammar: A Basic Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008.
• Linell, Per. Rethinking Language, Mind, and World Dialogically. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing, 2009.
• Luhmann, Nicklas. Art as a Social System. Translated by E. M. Knodt. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2000.
• Lutterbie, John. Toward a General Theory of Acting: Cognitive Science and Performance. New York: Palgrave MacMillan, 2011.
• Maturana Romesin, Humberto. “Autopoiesis, Structural Coupling, and Cognition: A History of These and Other Notions in the Biology of Cognition.” Cybernetics and Human Knowing 9, no. 3/4 (2002): 5–34.
• Maturana, Humberto, and Francisco Varela. Autopoiesis and Cognition: The Realization of the Living. Boston, MA: Riedel Publishing Co, 1980.
• McConachie, Bruce. Evolution, Cognition, and Performance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015.
• Merleau-Ponty, Maurice. Phenomenology of Perception. Translated by Colin Smith. London: Routledge, 2002.
• Murphy, Maiya. Enacting Lecoq: Movement in Theatre, Cognition, and Life. New York: Palgrave MacMillan, 2019.
• Newen, Albert, Leon De Bruin, and Shaun Gallagher, eds. The Oxford Handbook of 4E Cognition. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018.
• Popova, Yanna. B. “Participatory Sense-Making in Narrative Experience.” In Languaging Relations for Transforming the Literacy and Language Arts Classroom, edited by Richard Beach and David Bloome. New York: Routledge, 2019.
• Popova, Yanna. B. Stories, Meaning, and Experience: Narrativity and Enaction. New York: Routledge, 2015.
• Popova, Yanna B., and Elena Cuffari. “Temporality of Sense-Making in Narrative Interactions.” Cognitive Semiotics 11, no. 1 (2018). doi.org/10.1515/cogsem-2018-0007.
• Schechner, Richard. Performance Studies: An Introduction. New York: Routledge, 2006.
• Schmid, Hans. B. “Collective Emotions.” In The Routledge Handbook of Collective Intentionality, edited by Marija Jankowic and Kirk Ludwig. London: Routledge, 2017.
• Scholte, Tom. “Rehearsing the Revolution: Theatre as a Reflective Social Practice.” Kybernetes 46, no. 9 (2017): 1499–1507.
• Searle, John, R. Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1969.
• Sheets-Johnstone, Maxine. The Primacy of Movement. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1999.
• Sofia, Gabriele. “Systems Theory, Enaction, and Performing Acts.” In The Routledge Companion to Theatre, Performance and Cognitive Science, edited by Rick Kemp and Bruce McConachie. London: Routledge, 2019.
• States, Bert O. Great Reckonings in Little Rooms: On the Phenomenology of Theatre. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1985.
• Stewart, John, Oliver Gapenne, and Paolo Di Ezequiel, eds. Enaction: Toward a New Paradigm for Cognitive Science. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 2010.
• Thompson, Evan. “Life and Mind: From Autopoiesis to Neurophenomenology; A Tribute to Francisco Varela.” Phenomenology and Cognitive Sciences 3, no. 4 (2004): 381–398.
• Thompson, Evan. Mind in Life: Biology, Phenomenology, and the Sciences of Mind. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2007.
• Trevarthen, Colwyn. “Communication and Cooperation in Early Infancy: A Description of Primary Intersubjectivity.” In Before Speech: The beginning of Human Communication, edited by Margaret Bullowa. London: Cambridge University Press, 1979.
• Turner, Victor, Roger Abrahams, and Alfred Harris. The Ritual Process: Structure and Anti-Structure. New York: Routlege, 1969.
• Van Gennep, Arnold. The Rites of Passage. Translated by Monika B. Vizedom and Gabrielle L. Caffee. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1960.
• Varela, Francisco J. “The Early Days of Autopoiesis: Heinz and Chile.” Systems Research 13, no. 3 (1996): 407–416.
• Varela, Francisco J., Eleanor Rosch, and Evan Thompson. The Embodied Mind: Cognitive Science and Human Experience. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press, 1991.
• Villalobos, Mario, and David Ward. “Living Systems: Autonomy, Autopoiesis and Enaction.” Philosophy and Technology 28, no. 2 (2015): 225–239.
• Vygotsky, Lev. S. Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes, edited by Michael Cole et al. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1978.
• Zimmerman, Guy. “Devlin’s Love: Autopoiesis and Harold Pinter’s ‘Ashes to Ashes.’” Substance 49, no. 1 (2020): 74–96.

Identifiers

DOI

10.36744/pt.2571

Biblioteka Nauki

61792550