Writing Performance: Ethnography and Embedded Performance- Analysis Stefanie Husel (Mainz) This article rethinks the relationship between performance analysis and ethnographic methods in theatre studies. Rather than treating ethnography as an additional methodological approach, it argues that performance analysis itself has always been implicitly ethnographic and should be understood as a form of (auto-)ethnographic research. Ethnography is thus framed not as the study of the unfamiliar but as a systematic alienation of the overly familiar. Based on a reflective analysis of the author ’ s writing practice and an example from She She Pop ’ s Dance me! , the article demonstrates shared heuristic principles such as the oscillation between participation and distance, writing as an epistemic practice, and the explication of practical knowledge. It ultimately advocates an “ embedded ” approach to performance analysis that situates performances within broader sociocultural contexts and integrates them into qualitative empirical research frameworks. Art perceived strictly aesthetically is art aesthetically misperceived. Only when art ’ s other is sensed as a primary layer in the experience of art does it become possible to sublimate this layer, to dissolve the thematic bonds, without the autonomy of the artwork becoming a matter of indifference. 1 (Theodor W. Adorno) With the title Writing Theatre, this special issue and the preceding conference recall the writing culture debate of the 1980s, in which ethnographic approaches, especially within ethnology, were criticized; in particular, it was denounced at the time that (Western, privileged) writers assumed authorship over other, often marginalized contexts and individuals. Based on this fundamental criticism, the self-image of ethnographic working methods was questioned, reflected upon, and in many cases reformulated. Today, ethnographic methods are also gaining ground in theatre studies. Based on the experience that the simple professionalization of a privileged spectator ’ s gaze is not sufficient to comprehensively describe and analyse the rich world of theatre as well as performative phenomena more broadly, theatre scholars use ethnographic methods to examine not only performance situations but also rehearsal contexts, institutional frameworks, communities and their viewing habits, etc. Taking its cue from this development, the above-mentioned conference set itself the goal “ to discuss ethnographical strategies in the domain of theatre studies, including their epistemological repercussions ” and “ to take inspiration from the rich body of critical self-reflection in ethnography. ” 2 The conference and this special issue thus build on two recently published German-language methodology volumes 3 and a handbook for theatre and dance studies 4 , all of which note the increased use of social science methods in theatre studies, including ethnographic approaches, which no longer solely deal with analysing Forum Modernes Theater, 36/ 1-2, 127 - 140. Gunter Narr Verlag Tübingen DOI 10.24053/ FMTh-36-0010 performances, but are also interested in institutional, social or political issues. In the foreword to Methoden der Theaterwissenschaft, the editors describe the relationship between conventional performance analysis and ethnography as follows: Performance analysis has [. . .] now emancipated itself from its purely semiotic dependence and integrated further theoretical and methodological approaches, which in this volume range from phenomenology [. . .] to ethnographically influenced participant observation [. . .] to actor-network theory [. . .] and are advancing into the field of movement analysis [. . .]. However, it is primarily the more social science-oriented approaches that mark the most important additions to the more ‘ classical ’ semiotic-phenomenological-based performance analysis. (Emphasis added: SH) 5 Ethnography - understood here primarily as participant observation - is thus initially conceptualized as one of several additional methods available as an extension of traditional performance analysis. 6 In this article, I would like to reflect on the relationship between performance analysis as it has been established in theatre studies for about 40 years and ethnographic writing styles. To this end, I propose a different perspective: Instead of viewing ethnography as a newly discovered possibility for theatre studies or a necessary extension of performance-analysis, I would instead characterize performance analysis itself as an undertaking that has always been (implicitly) ethnographic and that could benefit greatly from a self-perception as (auto)ethnography. 7 First, I would like to clarify, in a brief historical overview of theory, the understanding of ethnography with which I will be working, i. e. an approach that is based not only on cultural anthropology/ ethnology, but rather on ethnographical writing modes developed in sociology and science studies, and which sees itself less as an investigation of ‘ the unfamiliar ’ and more as a systematic ‘ alienation ’ of the all-toofamiliar. In the second part of the article, I reflect on performance analysis as ethnography based on a praxeological discussion of my own writing. To this end, I refer to my analysis of She She Pop ’ s Dance Me! 8 The example shows that, in performance analysis as well as in ethnographic writing, the practices of the (performance) situation(s) addressed are made explicit. In doing so, the framework of the performance event is necessarily transcended in a reflective manner. This ultimately makes it possible to understand the embeddedness of the performance in sociocultural contexts. Lastly, I would like to briefly outline the type of theatre research that would enable this kind of ethnographically understood performance analysis and that is already performed within the CRC Human Differentiation at the Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz. Performance analysis then could be seamlessly integrated into a broader network of qualitative empirical research methods, which in turn would enable disciplinary and interdisciplinary theory production. Writing / Performance / Analysis: Theatre Studies and Ethnographic Methodology The announcement text for the above-mentioned conference also stated: While theatre scholars have traditionally found themselves within the dispositif of theatre as spectators confronting the performance, the move backstage and elsewhere equates to a loss of this privileged position and inevitably leads to an epistemological decentering of performance. 9 It is striking here that the change in perspective from an involved performance spec- 128 Stefanie Husel tator to a theatre scholar working ethnographically is described as a loss of focus, possibly even a loss of privilege. In fact, according to my observations, ethnographic work very often involves a constant adjustment of closeness and distance to the field of research and thus a necessary refocusing. I would like to take this opportunity to briefly discuss this ‘ back and forth ’ that is typical of ethnography, reflect on it in terms of the history of theory, and ultimately characterize it not only as a central heuristic of ethnographic knowledge production, but also as a core aspect of performance analysis. The choice of the telling title Writing Theatre for the conference and this special issue also emphasises the critical reflection of ethnographic perspective-taking that took place primarily in the US in the context of the Writing Culture debate, beginning in the 1970s. Within this framework, ethnographic writing styles developed particularly through ethnology/ cultural anthropology were deconstructed and, above all, decolonized. In this context, according to Stefan Hirschauer, two fundamental epistemic and ethical problems were addressed, both of which can be summarized under the term “ othering ” : Firstly, a “ naturalistic ” understanding of ethnographic data collection, which assumed that existing cultural facts could simply be retold, failed to recognize the “ epistemologically complex and problematic translation work ” behind ethnographic reports. Secondly, prior to the Writing Culture debate, ethnographers had claimed a questionable authority with their writings that did not allow for “ self-representation of the people being researched. ” 10 A key insight from the debate mentioned above was that the ethnographers ’ point of view was reflected upon and their writing was first and foremost characterized as a literary activity. In this context, the contribution made by ethnographic authors in explaining and interpreting previously unfamiliar forms of knowledge (or those not made accessible to academic reflection) was made explicit and brought out of its formerly shameful hiding place. For in an explicit gesture, there is an opportunity to no longer understand the subjective perspective as a threat to scientific objectivity, but instead as a heuristic that, precisely in its explicit subjectivity, is prepared not merely to exoticize or normalize the ‘ alien ’ , but rather to enter into dialogue, and to seek polyphony. 11 In the context of social empirical research with a stronger sociological than ethnological orientation, there have also been calls not to focus ethnographic research primarily on (distant) ‘ others ’ , ‘ strangers ’ or ‘ marginalized ’ groups, but to look just as closely at those close by, ‘ to one ’ s side ’ or “ above ” . 12 Ethnography understood in this way has become established, for example, in the sociology of the family, gender, sexuality, and the body, as well as in studies of bureaucratic structures and practices, especially in science and technology studies, ANT, and others. 13 In such contexts, however, the fundamental epistemic problem is no longer primarily to make the ‘ alien ’ understandable and to translate it, or to give voice to the silenced. The problem here is rather to ‘ alienate ’ the familiar and thus excessively self-evident (i. e., imperceptible) and thereby make it visible. 14 I would argue that such an ethnographic gesture of making the familiar strange is particularly appropriate for our discipline, since our subjects are usually extremely familiar to researchers. Whether it is because we are or were active in the field as assistants, dramaturgs, or critics, or because we, as professionalized spectators, are among the most intimate connoisseurs of its internal culture, it is usually difficult for us to take an outsider ’ s perspective. When seeking contact with established theatre makers, theatre scholars additionally often face the difficulty of engaging in dialogue with the primary - and often extremely eloquent - interpreters 129 Writing Performance: Ethnography and Embedded Performance-Analysis of their own work and risk simply re-contextualizing their statements in an academic setting. This makes it even more necessary to ‘ alienate ’ the all-too-familiar. It is therefore a matter of consciously employing a constructive form of othering to express for the first time what has hitherto been hidden in the self-evident: If one develops an observant relationship to one ’ s own culture, the cognitive achievement of ‘ othering ’ one ’ s own culture lies not primarily in explaining or understanding, but in explication. 15 Building on this, I would like to explain three interrelated adjustments to the understanding of ‘ writing theatre ’ , which, in my opinion, would be helpful in making such an academic ‘ alienation ’ epistemically productive: First, I would like to suggest that ethnographic writing should not be viewed primarily as another approach that theatre studies is newly acquiring as a supplement and integrating into its own canon of methods. Instead, I would argue that traditional performance analysis could already be understood as a practice that in many ways closely resembles ethnographic writing. Performance analysis could benefit greatly if this hitherto implicit similarity were made explicit and it were understood as a qualitative method within a larger framework of ethnographic methodology. This would initially involve researchers reflecting on their own position as field professionals, e. g., by focusing on processes in which ‘ insider ’ and ‘ outsider ’ status are manifested in the theatre dispositif. By speaking of ethnographic methodology (and not ‘ method ’ ), I would also like to refer to the “ methodological opportunism ” that Breidenstein et al. note in ethnographic approaches when they call ethnography an “ integrated research approach ” that is nevertheless centred around the experience of co-presence: This [integrated research approach] combines observations with interviews, technical recordings, and documents of all kinds. In this respect, ethnography is a less specialized approach than, for example, narrative, conversation, or discourse analysis. However, participant observation forms the centre of ethnography. 16 Instead of determining in advance which methods of accessing empirical data will be used, ethnographers allow themselves to be guided by the requirements of their fields, which arise ‘ on the fly ’ and adapt their approach accordingly - whether because surprising opportunities for conversation arise, or unexpected practices come into focus. In this context, too, I would argue that a procedure long practiced in theatre studies research could be explicated and established as a justified heuristic. Finally, and this seems particularly central to me, an ethnographic understanding of performance analysis would mean analysing performances just as carefully as usual but no longer viewing them as the central (and sometimes only) object of theatre studies research, but rather as ‘ cases ’ from which ‘ fields ’ for ethnographic research can be developed. Conversely, this would not mean examining additional ‘ heteronomous ’ aspects (such as institutionality, etc.) alongside the performance (which deals with the autonomous artwork that Adorno refers to in the epigraph to this essay), but rather focusing on embedding the aesthetic aspects of the performance in its sociocultural context. 17 In the following, the methodological considerations outlined so far will be discussed using an example to illustrate their implications for writing practice in theatre studies. 130 Stefanie Husel Exemplary Performance Analysis: Performing Differences in Dance Me! The starting point for my reflections is the process of creating a performance analysis that was developed in the context of the CRC Human Differentiation. 18 In reflecting on my own writing practice, I will emphasize all the similarities between performance analysis and ethnography but also highlight what the former can learn from the latter. The CRC Human Differentiation takes an interdisciplinary approach to examining differentiation practices that people use to distinguish themselves from one another and assign themselves to certain categories. The aim is to develop a theoretical and analytical framework that is open to the multidimensionality and contingency of the categorisation of members of society. 19 It shifts the focus of sociological attention towards the distinctions made between individuals within social processes of varying duration, and away from the social position of individuals and the formation of groups with particular characteristics. This framework is intended to facilitate comparative research by centring the elementary question: Which differentiation becomes relevant - or irrelevant - at what point in time? If we highlight the contingency of such distinctions, what we find is that they may be made or unmade, upheld or undermined, and that when they are confronted with other distinctions, they may be strengthened or supplanted. What ought to be examined, then, is not just the intersections of certain axes of differentiation defined in advance (like race, class, and gender in intersectionality studies) but a complex empirical interplay of human distinctions: the constant shifting of multiple categorisations between reinforcement and displacement, stabilisation and forgetting, thematisation and de-thematisation. 20 It is precisely the sensitivity to ambivalent nuances of expression performed in situ and to situational audience reactions offered by a performance-analytical approach that makes theatre studies predestined for addressing precisely such research questions. As one of the co-thinkers in this context, I have been specifically looking for productions that explicitly address human differentiation and therefore attended She She Pop ’ s Dance me! with particular interest, as it was announced as a dance battle between two teams: ‘ Team Old ’ and ‘ Team Young ’ . As much as I visited the production out of personal interest, a research question also guided my viewing experience and thus alienated me from a more ‘ natural ’ viewer perspective. Given my research background, I wondered how the distinction based on age or generational affiliation would be staged in the performance, i. e., how it would be shown, made perceptible, and connoted. The starting point of the performance analysis therefore corresponds to an ethnographic entrance into a field: A specific social situation is approached by researchers, who participate in it with an open question in mind. What follows are some descriptions I made in my performance analysis of She She Pop ’ s Dance me! . A dance battle between old and young is staged, with the ‘ old ’ being the members of the well-known off-theatre company She She Pop. All of them are in their fifties, whereas the ‘ young ’ guest performers are in their early to mid-20s. Both groups compete against each other in exhausting dance sessions, with the non-dancing group putting on the music and trying to make it particularly difficult for the other group. After each round, the remaining “ life energy ” is calculated, like in a computer game, and displayed on a glowing meter above the stage. How this calculation is made remains a mystery to the viewer, but it seems arbitrary and unfair. The same applies to the 131 Writing Performance: Ethnography and Embedded Performance-Analysis hostilities that the two groups hurl at each other in between dances - although arbitrariness and injustice seem to be deployed with a wink, and thus primarily trigger amusement. The dance competition allegedly taking place here is obviously ironic, the supposed battle of the generations presented with affection for each other. I take interested notes, observing with a detached, analytical attitude the way in which the claim of ‘ battling generations ’ is played out here. Nevertheless, the competitive game tempts me to play along and ask myself, for example, which side am I on, ‘ Team Old ’ or ‘ Team Young ’ ? Based solely on my age - I am in my early 40s - the classification doesn ’ t work, so who should I cheer for in the game? Can I clearly identify myself as a fan of one of the sides, or even as belonging to one? And if so, why? What characteristics, besides their age, do the teams have? Without me noticing, my detached gaze disappears and is replaced by an involved spectator attitude, which comes easily in this performance that is entertaining, provocative, colourful, and fun. Since my detachment repeatedly gives way to playing along and to letting myself become involved in the performance, it is necessary to re-distance myself again and again. The self-imposed task of taking notes helps me to do this. I repeatedly briefly emerge from my involvement when I write down keywords or statements in my notebook that relate the things I see to the bigger question of age differentiation that is guiding me. (e. g., I wrote down “ Young generation: more diverse, more agitative, and more ‘ woke ’ than the old generation, ” or “ I ’ m laughing myself silly; when a team performs in a particularly funny way, I become a fan, and the content of the performance is no longer that important! ” ). As is customary in performance analyses, I noted semiotic aspects of the performance: What signs distinguish Team Young as prototypically young? This is where, for instance, my note on performed idealism ( ‘ wokeness ’ ) can be classified: The fact that the members of ‘ Team Young ’ often made statements such as: Members of Team Old had never thought about their privileges, made them appear as prototypical representatives of a young and criticallyidealistic Gen Z. Furthermore, phenomenological aspects are also part of my notes, like the one of me noticing that I felt like a “ fan ” of one of the groups. The common practice of taking notes despite being immersed and using discipline-specific writing styles in the process is typical of performance analysis - and it also corresponds to the activities of ethnographers in the field. It has been stated on several occasions during the abovementioned debate that taking notes is not only a necessary recording practice and mnemonic technique, but also an effective heuristic. 21 It forces us to conceptualize experiences, leading to the involvement of experience in the process of analytical conceptual work. Thus, procedural and physical know-how is made explicit and processed in a disciplinary manner. Immediately after the performance of Dance me! , I left the auditorium in high spirits. I had laughed a lot and felt that I had learned something about the practice of differentiation on stage. I remember feeling the urge to take more notes, and I would have loved to go straight home and write down my initial memories and analytical thoughts. Like performance analysis, ethnography is often associated with a rather solitary writing practice: after immersion in the field, there is a kind of ‘ silent retreat ’ that offers further alienation and distancing from what had been experienced. As Hirschauer puts it: “ The retreat to writing (in the field) is followed by the retreat to the scriptorium (of the office) where verbalization without competition is not only allowed, but demanded. ” 22 At the desk, the (distancing 132 Stefanie Husel and alienating) writing practice that was already begun in the field, is usually continued and expanded. However, while ethnographers can assume that they will return to the field several times, theatre scholars often leave their research object, i. e. the performance, behind them as soon as they leave the theatre. Had I given in to my desire to go home and write, it might have remained a very ‘ traditional ’ performance analysis. But a conversation in the crowded foyer made me question my perception of the performance. A friend of mine apparently had a less amusing viewing experience than I did. Her perception of the conflict between the generations performed on stage had a stronger impact on her than it did on me. For instance, she questioned the association made in the production between ‘ young people ’ and political awareness and addressed the possibly underlying general criticism of ‘ the old ’ . The quite different impressions and after-effects of the performance on my companion and myself suddenly made me curious about the audience discussion offered that evening and I therefore decided to stay and to maybe include the impressions yet to come in my analysis. Unlike theatre scholars who write performance analyses, ethnographers do not know in advance when the ‘ show is over ’ and it is time to leave the field - in the recursive research design of ethnographic work, it is assumed that a field only unfolds gradually. At this point, my approach began to deviate slightly from a typical performance analysis. I will return to this point below. Back in the auditorium, I once again had the opportunity to watch, listen and to take out my notebook and distance myself through writing. Now this proved to be even more necessary than during the actual performance. For the tension that I had already perceived in a milder form during my conversation in the foyer now indeed dominated the debate between the audience in the auditorium and the theatre makers on stage - a delegation of two from each “ team ” . It almost seemed as if the conflictual lines of differentiation between old and young presented playfully in the production were being further negotiated: An accusatory tone was struck, delineating a young and an old group - now, however, mainly among the audience. The two ‘ old ’ performers on the podium meanwhile seemed to justify themselves in both directions, but above all defended ‘ the young ’ - performers and audience members. The conflict seemed to flare up over two complementary accusations: “ you (old people) don ’ t recognise your latent sexist/ racist/ etc. and highly privileged point of view in the slightest ” versus “ you (young people) have no idea of real struggle/ suffering/ problems anyway ” . I remember most vividly a moment that was so intense that I could only note it down retrospectively, as during the situation itself I had stopped taking notes and watched the events unfold with my breath held: An ‘ old ’ audience member asked one of the ‘ young ’ performers, a person of colour, sitting on the podium whether he really experienced racial discrimination in Germany these days. She even pressed him to come up with some personal examples - all in a cynical and incredulous tone. As unsympathetic as the ‘ old ’ person asking the question was at that moment, one could almost feel a little sorry for her, since apparently she hadn ’ t really expected how much anger she would be facing following her question. Perhaps she had hoped to speak simply as a representative of the ‘ old ones ’ in the room. However, this was collectively denied her: With the support of everyone, ‘ young ’ and ‘ old ’ fellow performers, but also the audience across all generations, the performer who had been so rudely addressed managed to respond with great composure. He deflected the question back to the (indignantly hissing) audience by 133 Writing Performance: Ethnography and Embedded Performance-Analysis suggesting that this point could perhaps be negotiated there. And indeed, this was followed by numerous statements from audience members, who assured the performer on the podium that, although they “ also belonged to the older generation ” , they were not prepared to accept the ignorance and aggression exhibited. As a result, the unnecessary and hurtful remark made by the now isolated ‘ old ’ viewer created an unexpected and rather sudden consensus across the previously sharply drawn generational boundaries. In fact, this became the starting point for the performance analysis that I would write. Based on the experience of the ‘ recruitment ’ of the audience members as supporters of the young performer, I first examined the underlying mechanisms. Here, too, I primarily used performance analysis questions and corresponding vocabulary. Which codes made people perceive individuals as belonging to ‘ Team Young ’ or ‘ Team Old ’ , and what other characteristics did the two groups attribute to each other in the discussion? At the same time, I pondered further questions that could not be answered based on my experience up to that point: Had situations like the one in the public discussion I had participated in occurred frequently? Had the generational conflict, which had only been playfully negotiated in the performance, spilled over into ‘ real life ’ on other occasions? And was it even a generational conflict? How did the performers feel after this emotionally charged conversation? So, I decided to add an artist talk to my data and arranged to meet up again with the Dance me! performers who had participated in the audience discussion. This ultimately revealed new conflict lines of a ‘ real ’ conflict that had arisen between the artistic generations who had come together in the Dance me! production - between established and less established artists and their respective self-perceptions. Only now did it become clear what a central role perceived power relations had in playing up or down the aforementioned conflict. Furthermore, it became apparent that age as a clearly definable category never stood on its own, but was ultimately always used as a kind of container for a whole bundle of further distinctions. 23 The research approach described above allowed me to combine the insights gained from my conversation with the artists with my analysis of the performance and audience discussion, and to process everything into a dense analytical description. In my performance analysis, I thus incorporated the experience gained outside the actual performance, ultimately choosing a performanceand conversation-analytical approach to both the audience discussion and the conversation with the artists. This has a twofold benefit: Firstly, in terms of content, I gained insights into the function of the performance situation. In direct comparison, it became clear that the agreement in the conflictual negotiation of differences in the audience discussion had required a common enemy, and that this function had not been necessary in the context of the performance. Apparently, the ironic attitude of the (ultimately aimless) competition enacted in Dance me! had enabled a peaceful view of generational differentiation practices, enclosed in a playful and humorous framework. Secondly, there is a methodological insight which is transcends the case and is relevant to the discipline of theatre studies: Performance analysis should not stop at the ‘ edge ’ of a performance. It is necessary to ‘ let go ’ of the performance situation and to recursively incorporate the field of research into the analysis, as is customary in ethnographic research. 134 Stefanie Husel Theatre-Ethnographic Procedures and Embedded Performance Analysis In summary, I would like to suggest some adjustments to performance analysis as a method and advocate for an “ embedded ” version of it. 24 Let ’ s start by highlighting again the similarities between ethnographic research and performance analysis that have emerged so far. Both practice an ongoing back and forth between participation and distancing and both approaches present researchers with a genuinely literary task: experiences from the field or the performance must be put into words and then find their way into coherent academic phrasing. In doing so, both performance analysis and ethnography dig for practical or procedural knowledge, which lies hidden in the empiric world. Despite these similarities, three main differences or even contradictions between the two approaches remain. I would like to argue that these are ultimately unnecessary and that their levelling would benefit both performance analysis and ethnography. Firstly, ethnographic research practice has been reflected on much more intensively in terms of scientific theory and methodology than has been the case with performance analysis (which is hardly surprising given the sheer number of practitioners). For this reason, there are numerous writings in the context of ethnography that not only reflect on the heuristic benefit of practices that at first glance appear quite banal but also understand them as central heuristics (e. g., the practice of taking field notes or the management of difficulties in field access). 25 A corresponding reflection on our disciplinebased forms of observation and writing - as echoed in the title Writing Theatre - has yet to be undertaken, and it would benefit greatly from drawing inspiration from existing ethnographical literature. Furthermore, a convergence of methodological expertise in theatre studies and micro-sociological approaches, which are often used in ethnographic contexts (such as frame or conversation analysis) could lead to mutual enrichment. 26 Theatre scholars Roselt and Weiler, for example, develop an alternating approach between immersion in practice and written contemplation in their textbook on performance analysis by reflecting on memory protocols as an analytical tool. 27 However, this writing practice is understood as an instrument to memorize a (one-time, past) event. Although memory is understood here as dynamic, and the associated writing practice therefore clearly resembles what ethnographers understand as the explication of practical knowledge, a look at ethnographic methodology literature can provide further encouragement to make writing about performance experience a central epistemic instrument of analysis and, in addition, to shift or rethink the focus on the uniqueness and event-ness of performances: Instead of focusing on uniqueness, one could then ask, for example, how eventness is produced despite staging practices designed for repetition. This example leads me to the second point. The most striking difference between performance analysis and ethnographic methods lies in the duration of the respective phases of immersion in field and the subsequent work of explication. While theatre scholars may attend and reflect on several performances of a single production, their central research interest is nevertheless focused on the fleeting and time-limited practices within the context of these performance situations. Ethnographers, on the other hand, often spend years in the field and, as already mentioned, often do not know exactly when the ‘ show will end ’ . Instead, they search for clues in the field as to what field participants consider to be relevant boundaries of that field. In theatre studies, Doris Kolesch and Theresa Schütz have countered the performance-focused ap- 135 Writing Performance: Ethnography and Embedded Performance-Analysis proach with the demand for a “ multi-perspective ” performance analysis. The understanding of performance analysis developed here comes very close to such a multiperspectival approach, which also goes beyond the duration of the performance situation to include, e. g., audience discussions and the like: In this way, the performance essentially continues in individual post-performance discussions as well as in audience discussions organized by the theatre, leading to an active afterlife and continued existence. Methodologically, the conclusion to be drawn from this would be (. . .) to use subsequent performance discussions (. . .) more than has been usual up to now as material for performance analysis, (. . .), as visitors often seek to verbalize their perspective or experience of the performance in these discussions. 28 However, an ethnographically influenced understanding of performance analysis goes even further than simply incorporating additional perspectives as a supplement. For ethnographic researchers, the focus is more on a constructive search for moments of alienation. When it becomes apparent - as in the aforementioned example of Dance me! - that the ethnographer understands something ‘ differently ’ or ‘ not at all ’ compared to other participants in the situation, the crisis of understanding is initially taken as an indication of a practice of making sense that has not yet been explored. Although further perspectives on the performance are certainly sought in this process, the focus of interest is on the search for performance practices and their roots or continuations beyond the performance. To approach a field from multiple angles or from several sides, the alternation between fieldwork and reflective withdrawal is extremely helpful. Breidenstein et al. refer to this as “ recursive research design ” , which is characterized by two features in particular: First, data collection and data analysis alternate several times; the analysis results from a participatory observation phase are immediately fed into a second and third round of material collection, so that the cycle begins anew. (. . .) This ongoing analysis of the ethnographic material leads to ethnographers specifying their research questions, deepening their access to the field, and optimizing data generation. Secondly, instead of initial specifications, there is initially a great openness of questioning, which only takes on a direction during the research process through contact with the subject. 29 This leads directly to the third and last difference between the approaches discussed here: the tailoring of ‘ fields ’ , a theorem that is used heuristically in ethnography but receives little attention in theatre studies. Breidenstein et al. describe the terms “ field ” and “ case ” used by ethnographers and their relationship as follows: Instead of methods used to extract statements from a small sample that describe a large whole as representatively as possible, we are dealing with studies that intensively and repeatedly circle individual cases and analyse them in detail. The case of an ethnography that encompasses all particular cases is its field. 30 The heuristic benefit of this idea of the field lies precisely in the fact that fields are not understood as objectively given entities. Rather, it is assumed that a field develops slowly within the framework of ethnographic approaches and can unfold over numerous locations and large periods of time, for instance, when questions arise based on an observation made in the field that can only be answered in further and differently designed contexts of investigation. This was the case in the example described above (similar changes of location also occurred in the context of my dissertation). 31 136 Stefanie Husel Given this, I would like to emphasize that performance research that allows for such changes of location and temporal extension does not have to cease to be aesthetic performance research. In fact, it is sufficient to understand such approaches as the study of performance practices and not, as has been the case to date, primarily as the analysis of self-contained situations. If the main research interest lies in the explication of practical experience and practical knowledge, it can only succeed if performances, and the practices of representation and perception carried out there, are generally regarded as objects of research, but not at the same time as the field of research. For when it comes to performance practices, questions about their genesis arise: Where, how, by whom, and within which infrastructural framework are certain practices enacted? How do they change across situations and locations, and where are they carried on? This third aspect is particularly important, since performance analysis has so far implicitly assumed that everything relevant to performance lies within the boundaries of the performance situation - ultimately reproducing a participant theory that is very closely aligned with the sphere of art and in which an implicit adherence to the ‘ autonomy of art ’ and to the ‘ work of art ’ still can be recognized. Conclusion The advantages of bringing performance analysis and ethnographic approaches closer together should be obvious at this point. Performance analysis gains methodological and technical reflexivity, longue durée, and the possibility of opening entire fields that have not been investigated yet. By integrating perspectives from performance analysis, ethnographic work gains vocabularies that can examine encounters/ interactions and the manifold forms of mimesis that can also be found outside the theatre. This idea is by no means new - it is expressed in the founding writings of US performance studies, as well as in publications in the context of the Berlin-based CRC Kulturen des Performativen (Cultures of the Performative). 32 In theatre studies theory, the idea that performance practices should become a central research interest of our discipline has long been firmly established, particularly under the paradigm of the performative. 33 In order to also meet this requirement methodologically, the adjustments discussed in this essay are highly relevant, especially since this type of methodological adjustment could lead to a break in the cognitive process, as envisioned by Bourdieu 34 - a break with the “ preconstructed objects ” of theatre studies. Bourdieu writes: There are all sorts of preconstructed objects that impose themselves as scientific objects; being rooted in common sense, they immediately receive the approval of the scientific community and a wider public. For example, a good number of divisions of the object correspond to bureaucratic divisions: the major divisions of sociology correspond to the division into ministries, with the Ministry of Education, the Ministry of Culture, the Ministry of Sport, and so on. 35 Bourdieu ’ s witty remark is thus aimed at the fact that for a long time, sociology would not have thought of questioning its research areas because they seemed so self-evident and obvious. The same could be said for the seemingly inescapable objects of theatre studies, i. e. performances, as well as the resulting division into production and reception aesthetics: both notions unquestioningly reproduce the idea of a self-contained performance situation as the one and only aesthetically relevant research object. Performance analysis in theatre studies has to a 137 Writing Performance: Ethnography and Embedded Performance-Analysis certain extent always stopped at the boundaries of the performance situation. Accordingly, it seems to me that the disciplinary discourse here is bound to a pre-constructed thought pattern that originates in the field. Analyses were conducted as if aesthetics only occurred in the quasi-magical moment of performance, whereas practical circumstances of production and reception were dismissed as aesthetically uninteresting and merely a subject for the social sciences. However, performances as emerging events can only be understood if one is able to describe the rehearsed practices of representation and perception which help performances appear in the first place - and their impact can only be comprehended if it becomes clear how they work beyond performance situations. 36 It is precisely this sociocultural embedding that theatre studies loses, when it approaches performance analysis solely in terms of specific performance situations. 37 Embedded performance analysis could become a part of the methodological repertoire of qualitative social and cultural research. Performance and viewing practices may manifest themselves in performance situations in a specific, emerging and unique form - but they are not based on this one situation alone. It is precisely these regularities, connections, and constellations in their situational concreteness that can be described in an ethnographic manner. To do this, one must move from aesthetic amazement to academic astonishment and not stop analysing at the edge of the performance situation. This, in my view, would be the way to further develop the truly exploratory and critical potential of performance analysis practice. Notes 1 Theodor W. Adorno, Gretel Adorno, Rolf Tiedemann (eds.), Aesthetic Theory. Newly translated, edited, and with a translator ’ s introduction by Robert Hullot-Kentor, London / New York 2022, p. 31. 2 Quoted from the flyer for the conference Writing Theatre. 3 Christopher Balme, Berenika Szymanski- Düll (eds.), Methoden der Theaterwissenschaft, Tübingen 2020 and Benjamin Wihstutz, Benjamin Hoesch (ed.), Neue Methoden der Theaterwissenschaft, Bielefeld 2020. 4 Beate Hochholdinger-Reiterer, Christina Turner, Julia Wehren (eds.), Theater und Tanz. Handbuch für Wissenschaft und Studium, Baden-Baden 2023. 5 Christopher Balme, Berenika Szymanski- Düll, “ Einleitung ” , in: Balme, Szymanski- Düll (eds.), Methoden der Theaterwissenschaft, p. 9 - 25, here 12 - 13. My translation. 6 A volume dealing with social science-based qualitative research methods in theatre and performance studies has recently been published in the English-speaking theatre studies literature. See Tracy C. Davis, Paul Rae (eds.), The Cambridge Guide to Mixed Methods Research for Theatre and Performance Studies, Cambridge 2024. 7 Conversely, I believe that other ethnographic approaches would benefit from expertise in performance analysis. 8 Stefanie Husel, “ Wettstreit der Generationen? Verhandlung, Nivellierung und Neujustierung von Differenz in (und um) She Pops Dance Me! ” , in: Friedemann Kreuder, Benjamin Wihstutz (eds.), Staging Differences. Orientierungen, Kategorisierungen und Identitätspolitiken in Theater und Performance, Tübingen 2024, p. 229 - 248. 9 From the flyer for the Writing Theatre conference. 10 Stefan Hirschauer, Klaus Amann (eds.), Die Befremdung der eigenen Kultur. Zur ethnographischen Herausforderung soziologischer Empirie, Frankfurt 1997, p. 11. 11 A critical milestone in this regard is the early anthology: Dell Hymes (ed.), Reinventing Anthropology, New York 1974 [1969]. 12 See in the same volume: Laura Nader, “ Up the Anthropologist - Perspectives Gained 138 Stefanie Husel from Studying Up ” , in: Dell Hymes (ed.), Reinventing Anthropology, New York 1974 [1969], p. 284 - 311. Here, Nader discusses the questionable tendency of ethnographic studies to conduct research ‘ downwards ’ , whether it is in the study of marginalized subcultures or “ tribal societies ” with little academic voice of their own. She counters this with the demand to address - at least reciprocally - the corresponding power-political counterparts vertically. For only by looking at structures of financial policy or international relations, for example, can we understand how poverty remains poverty and wealth remains wealth, how foreignness is constructed, and “ tribal societies ” are declared as such. Citing Nader, Jonas Tinius also refers to the need for a change of perspective in theatre research, cf.: Jonas Tinius, “ Die Ethnografie als Methode der Theaterwissenschaft? ” , in: Balme, Szymanski-Düll (eds.), Methoden der Theaterwissenschaft, p. 324. 13 Examples include the work of Thomas Scheffer, who conducted ethnographic research on the asylum recognition process in German authorities (cf. Thomas Scheffer, Asylgewährung. Eine ethnographische Analyse des deutschen Asylverfahrens, Stuttgart 2001.), Peter Hofmann's study on reproductive treatments (cf. Peter Hofmann, Paare in Kinderwunschbehandlung. Eine Ethnografie soziotechnischer Praktiken des Kinderkriegens, Oldenburg 2023.), Sophie Merit Müller ’ s autoethnography on her training as a ballet dancer (cf. Sophie Merit Müller, Körperliche Un-Fertigkeiten. Ballett als unendliche Perfektion, Weilerswist 2016.) and Karin Knorr Cetina ’ s work on “ cultures of knowledge ” (cf. Karin Knorr Cetina, Wissenskulturen. Ein Vergleich naturwissenschaftlicher Wissensformen, Frankfurt a. M. 2002.) 14 As noted by Hirschauer, Amann (ed.), Die Befremdung der eigenen Kultur, p. 8. 15 Ibid., p.13. My translation.. 16 Georg Breidenstein, Stefan Hirschauer, Herbert Kalthoff, Boris Nieswand, Ethnografie. Die Praxis der Feldforschung, München 2020, p.38. My translation. 17 For more details cf. Stefanie Husel, “ Zur Praxeologie des Theaters “ , in Wihstutz, Hoesch (ed.), Neue Methoden der Theaterwissenschaft, p. 225 - 246. 18 Cf. Husel “ Wettstreit der Generationen ” . 19 Cf. Stefan Hirschauer, “ Telling People Apart. Outline of a Theory of Human Differentiation ” , in: Sociological Theory 41 No. 4 (2023), p. 352 - 376. 20 Cf.,Stefan Hirschauer: “ Humandifferenzierung. Modi und Grade sozialer Zugehörigkeit ” , in: Stefan Hirschauer (ed.), Un/ doing Differences. Praktiken der Humandifferenzierung. Weilerswist 2017, p. 29 - 54. 21 Cf. Stefan Hirschauer, “ Puttings things into words. Ethnographic description and the silence of social ” , in: A Journal for Philosophy and the Social Sciences 29 (2007) p. 413 - 441. 22 Ibid., p.427. 23 I have described these aspects in detail in the aforementioned essay - at this point, further elaboration would go beyond the scope of this paper. 24 I use the term “ embedding ” inspired by Erving Goffman ’ s later work Forms of Talk. This work argues micro-sociologically, is ethnographically extremely useful, and, in my opinion, can serve as an excellent background for performance analyses. In the chapter “ Footing ” , Goffman describes how (everyday as well as theatre) performances can always be described as an interaction between “ production formats ” and “ participation frameworks ” . Furthermore, he uses the term “ embedding ” to point out that other contexts are often embedded in encounters and conversations, e. g. as quotes or references, but also as mimetic mini-performances, etc. Cf. Erving Goffman, Forms of Talk, Pennsylvania 1981, p. 124 - 160. 25 For example, when Hirschauer examines field notes, which, upon closer inspection, prove to be a central tool for explaining practical knowledge (cf. Hirschauer, “ Putting things into words ” ), or when difficulties in understanding video material become readable as signs of varying vis-ability, thus providing the researcher with important clues about visual practices in the field. 139 Writing Performance: Ethnography and Embedded Performance-Analysis Another example is when, as in the case of Lau and Wolff, difficulties in accessing the field and the unwillingness of field members to tolerate research in their immediate environment provide key insights into the rules and the functioning of this very field. (Cf. Larissa Schindler, “ The production of ‘ vis-ability ’ . An ethnographic video analysis of a material arts-class ” , in: Ulrike Tikvah Kissmann (ed.), Video Interaction Analysis. Methods and Methodology, Frankfurt a. M. 2009, p.135 - 154 and Thomas Lau, Stephan Wolff, “ Der Einstieg in das Untersuchungsfeld als soziologischer Lernprozess ” , in: Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie, 35 (1983), p. 417 - 437.) 26 Promising literature here would be Frame Analysis by Goffman, whose concept of “ negative experience ” comes very close to the “ oscillation ” that is often emphasized in Erika Fischer-Lichte ’ s writings (cf. Erving Goffman, Frame Analysis. An Essay on the Organization of Experience, New York 1974, p. 378 - 483 and Erika Fischer-Lichte “ Perzeptive Multistabilität in: Fischer-Lichte et al., Wege der Wahrnehmung, Berlin 2006, p.129 - 139.) 27 Christel Weiler, Jens Roselt, Aufführungsanalyse. Eine Einführung, Tübingen 2017, p. 103 - 129. 28 Doris Kolesch, Theresa Schütz “ Polyperspektivische Aufführungs- und Inszenierungsanalyse am Beispiel von SIGNAs Söhne & Söhne ” , in: Wihstutz, Hoesch (ed.), Neue Methoden der Theaterwissenschaft, p 25 - 46, here p.35. My translation. 29 Breidenstein et al., Ethnografie. Die Praxis der Feldforschung, p.51. My translation. 30 Ibid., 52. 31 Cf. Stefanie Husel, Grenzwerte im Spiel. Die Aufführungspraxis der britischen Kompanie ‚ Forced Entertainment ‘ . Eine Ethnografie, Bielefeld 2014, p. 243 - 268. Based on technically mediated ‘ eavesdropping ’ on the audience ’ s laughter in a performance of Forced Entertainment's Bloody Mess, I wondered how the audience was able to orient themselves so easily in the performance and to adjust the volume of their laughter so quickly. Was the dramaturgy of the production so self-explanatory? To get to the bottom of the scenes ’ inner logic that became apparent here, I moved from recording the audience ’ s laughter to a new phase of rehearsal research with the group. 32 Cf. Richard Schechner, Willa Appel, By Means of Performance. Intercultural Studies of Theatre and Ritual, Cambridge 1990 and Richard Schechner, Performance Studies. An Introduction, London 2002; Erika Fischer- Lichte, Christoph Wulf (eds.), Theorien des Performativen, Berlin 2001 and Erika Fischer-Lichte, Ästhetik des Performatives, Frankfurt a. M. 2004. 33 In my essay “ Zur Praxeologie des Theaters ” (On the Praxeology of Theatre), I discuss the proximity between the theorisation of the performative in theatre studies and the more methodologically reflective theories of practice in the social and cultural sciences. Cf. Husel “ Zur Praxeologie des Theaters ” . 34 Cf. Pierre Bourdieu, Jean-Claude Chamboredon, Jean-Claude Passeron, The Craft of Sociology. Epistemological Preliminaries, Berlin / New York 1991, p. 13 - 33. 35 Ibid., p. 249. 36 In his text On Interobjectivity, Bruno Latour addresses this situational bias, which is also frequently encountered in microsociology, with the scathing rhetoric that the ability to trans-situationally embed is precisely what distinguishes human societies from those of baboons. Cf. Bruno Latour, “ On Interobjectivity ” , in: Mind, Culture and Activity 3 No.4 (1996), p. 228 - 245. 37 For a more detailed description of what embedded performance analysis might look like in the context of studies into programme placement and/ or fundraising, casting/ dramaturgy/ production, rehearsal processes, audience and media resonance, see Friedemann Kreuder, Stefanie Husel, “ Staging Differences. Interferenzen von Teilnehmerrollen und Humandifferenzierungen im Gegenwartstheater ” , in: Dilek Dizdar et al. (ed.), Humandifferenzierung. Disziplinäre Perspektiven und empirische Sonderungen, Weilerswist 2021, p. 193 - 200. 140 Stefanie Husel