Fabric Philosophy : The "Texture" of Theatricality and Performativity

PERFORMANCE PHILOSOPHY VOL 2, NO 2 (2017):172-188 DOI: h ps://doi.o g/10.21476/PP.2017.2264 ISSN 2057-7176 PERFORMANCE PHILOSOPHY FABRIC PHILOSOPHY: THE “TEXTURE” OF THEATRICALITY AND PERFORMATIVITY TEEMU PAAVOLAINEN UNIVERSITY OF TAMPERE Beyond hei appa en conno a ions wi h he pe o ming a s, he no ions o hea icali y and pe o ma i i y ha e come o unc ion as all-emb acing me apho s o social exis ence and all bu pe ade ou aes he ic, academic, and e e yday discou ses. A ising in he wake o mode ni y and pos mode nism espec i ely, nei he concep need ha e close ies o hea ical pe o mance. Indeed, hei a endan philosophies ha e ex ended hei each no only ac oss di e en a o ms (c . F ied 1998), bu u he in o he ma e ial, echnological, o social sphe e a la ge (e.g. McKenzie 2001). Howe e —and his is he i s axiom o he p esen a icle—bo h concep s also seem o luc ua e be ween con lic ing alues o no el y and no ma i i y: hea icali y, be ween he essence o an a o m and a mo e e asi e cul u al ‘ alue ha mus be ei he ejec ed o emb aced’ (Puchne 2002, 31); pe o ma i i y, be ween e ec i e doing and me e dissimula ion. Ve y b ie ly, he o me ield o ension e okes wha has come o be known as he ‘an i hea ical p ejudice’ (Ba ish 1981), da ing back o he alues o ca ha sis and con amina ion as mobilised in Pla o and A is o le’s ea ly dispu e o e hea ical mimesis. Mo e ecen ly, he ‘ hea ical and decons uc i e meanings o [ he] “pe o ma i e”’ would ‘span he pola i ies’ o wha E e Koso sky Sedgwick dubs ‘ he ex o e sion o he ac o (aimed en i ely ou wa d owa d he audience) and he in o e sion o he signi ie ’ (2003, 7)—hence also he pa adox ha Jon McKenzie (2001, 15) no es be ween he ‘sub e si e’ and ‘no ma i e alences’ o pe o ma i i y, in u n-o - he-cen u y Pe o mance S udies and in he philosophy o Judi h Bu le . The second axiom—one ha I only s a e he e bu will elabo a e h oughou —is ha ce ain d ama u gical endencies can be asc ibed o bo h concep s ha no only alida e hei dis inc ion, bu also hold ac oss he kinds o ensions desc ibed (e ec ing a ce ain consis ency, ha is, 173 PERFORMANCE PHILOSOPHY VOL 2 (2) (2017) be ween he no ma i e and he sub e si e, o pe o ma i i y, o he ejec ed and he emb aced, o hea icali y). To di es hem o a ce ain aken- o -g an edness, and o a oid he ci cula i y o only de ining hem in e ms o changing hea e o pe o mance p ac ices, his a icle aims o ease ou aspec s o hea icali y and pe o ma i i y ela i ely de ached om no ions o “ac ing” o “ ole- play,” say, and ul ima ely o enlis hem in a ex u al philosophy o wea ing and zooming— speci ically inspi ed by Tim Ingold’s ecological an h opology and by S ephen C. Peppe ’s philosophical p agma ism om he 1940s. Whe e Ingold’s ecology o lines admi s o ‘no insides o ou sides,’ ‘ ailing loose ends in e e y di ec ion’ (2007, 103, 50), Peppe ’s ‘con ex ualis ic wo ld’ o e en s admi s ‘no op no bo om’ o he e e - ami ying s ands o hei ex u e and quali y ([1942] 1984, 251). Ra he han indi idual ac ion o social sanc ion, bo h e lec a wo ld o eme gence and becoming. In such e ms, I a gue ha he idioms o hea icali y and pe o ma i i y alike ha e ye o ou li e hei use ulness and a e indeed capable o doing c i ical wo k oday, i only we shi om models o bina y con ainmen ( he ins and ou s o “wha coun s”) o some hing o a mo e “ ex u al” app oach along he lines I shall wo k o p opose. Su ely, he e is mo e o ab ic philosophy. Deleuze and Gua a i’s (1988) well-wo n language o hizome and haeccei y, wi h lines o ligh o becoming, is a pa icula in luence on Ingold; el and ab ic exempli ying hei ideas o smoo h and s ia ed space: c oche and kni ing, pa chwo k and emb oide y. Today, ex ile schola ship is also boos ed by i s long- e m elega ion o a domain, no o masculine ision, bu o ac ile eminini y (see Hemmings 2012). As Ingold pu s i , ‘ he echnical and he ex ilic’ s em om he same oo bu we e ‘ele a ed’ and ‘debased,’ in mode ni y, as masculine echnology and ‘me e c a ’ (2011a, 211–2). Indeed, he e is an impo an deba e wi hin second- and hi d-wa e eminism o e igu es o wea ing and emb oide y. Fo some, hey sugges emale-speci ic me apho s o hough , c ea i i y, and collabo a ion, po en ially sub e si e o pa ia chal sys ems o echnology and domina ion; o o he s, hey only go o ein o ce essen ialis s e eo ypes o domes ic womanhood and emale submission. (Paasonen 2005, 173–8; Pa ke 2010.) The his o ical pe o ma i i y o such s e eo ypes is nea ly cap u ed in a ecen essay by li e a y schola Ka ie Collins (2016): ‘Women’s na u ally nimble inge s we e o be occupied,’ he ‘ ills and ippe ies’ hey p oduced p o iding ‘ample e idence, should anyone equi e i , ha [ hey] we e i olous c ea u es en i ely unsui ed o public li e.’ Recognising he buil -in masculini y o he ‘ heo ies-as-buildings me apho ’ o academic w i ing— ha i is public, o de ly, and a ional—she sugges s ha needlec a me apho s migh de ine i as a decen ed ac i i y ha is ‘no indi idualis ic o compe i i e,’ no apa om li e (like he soli a y schola o old, si ing in his s udy ‘while he minu iae o clo hing and ood is o ganised o him, a ound him, despi e him’). Mos impo an ly, i is abou ‘piecing oge he … hings o a ying sou ce and quali y … ha wouldn’ necessa ily i oge he ’ in he building me apho ; ce ainly ue o his a icle, his also sugges s one way o doing pe o mance philosophy. In wha ollows, S and 1 o he a icle del es deepe in o he ensions inhe en in how hea icali y and pe o ma i i y ha e o en been discussed, and in oduces he “ ex u al” me apho s o Ingold and o Peppe ’s “con ex ualism.” S and 2 in oduces Ingold’s meshwo k as a key igu e o plu al pe o ma i e becoming: he in e wea ing o lines (li es, ma e ials, ac ions, ges u es), as opposed 174 PERFORMANCE PHILOSOPHY VOL 2 (2) (2017) o he ne wo k as a key igu e o hea ical de achmen o abs ac ion— he connec ing o poin s o objec s in o which he meshwo k is simpli ied when we op ically “zoom ou ” om i s hap ic engagemen . In S and 3, he d ama u gical luc ua ion be ween hea ical ne wo ks and pe o ma i e meshwo ks—Peppe ’s ex u es and quali ies—is exempli ied by b ie ly zooming ou o he An h opos(s)cene, as a globally u gen a ian o he medie al hea um mundi. (Tha e en he mo e conc e e o my examples emain ela i ely abs ac e lec s he a icle’s a ionale as a p ima ily heo e ical p o oca ion. I i is any excuse, I ha e jus inished a d a manusc ip o a book in which I un a el hea ical and pe o ma i e ex u es ac oss a wide ab ic o case s udies, om hea e p ac ice, h ough Ba oque and mode nis a chi ec u e, o echnology and a is ic ac i ism.) S and 1. No el y and No ma i i y: Some Compe ing Me apho s So wha a e he ensions inhe en in he language o hea icali y and pe o ma i i y? On he one hand, a ce ain duali y ends o be posi ed be ween he wo e ms. A guably, he o me has been mo e popula among con inen al, and he la e among Anglo-Ame ican heo is s (Reinel 2002, 207). In he wake o pe o mance a and he ise o Pe o mance S udies, he wo would e en be educed o a bina y opposi ion. Mo e impo an o he con inued i ali y o hei concep ual dis inc ion, howe e , is he de i a ion o he wo ds hemsel es. Supe icially, i would seem ha he sha ed su ix o hea icali y and pe o ma i i y only iden i ies hem as gene al quali ies o e en s o ac ions, and hus as somehow equi alen —abs ac ing hem away om he speci ics o ac ual hea es and pa icula pe o mances, bu also implici ly essen ialising skill and sensibili y as do wo ds like musicali y o humani y. Mo e c ucially, howe e , he co e dis inc ion ha hei e ymologies sugges be ween seeing and doing ( om he G eek heâs hai, “ o behold,” and he Old F ench pa o ni , “ o do, ca y ou , inish, accomplish”) is casually ex ended o hose o o m and unc ion, heo y and p ac ice, ixi y and change: igid semiosis as opposed o e ec i e ac ion, inne meaning e sus ou e e ec , he wha o ep esen a ion and he how o ei e a ion. As S ephen Bo oms no es, e en such “b aided” bina ies as Richa d Schechne ’s—o “en e ainmen ” and “e icacy” (2003, 112–69)—o en come wi h gende ed o e ones o ‘po en i ili y e sus showy s e ili y’ (Bo oms 2003, 181; he akes speci ic issue wi h Schechne ’s he e ono ma i e alida ion o pe o ma i e e icacy o e hea ical “e eminacy”). On he o he hand, bo h e ms a e idden wi h ension and pa adox in hemsel es. Ca ica u ing hei mo e nega i e and mo e posi i e alo isa ions in ou poin s, I e u n o he con lic ing alues o no el y and no ma i i y b ie ly posi ed abo e: [1] Begin wi h he “an i hea ical p ejudice” and he hea e’s s a ed e ymology o sigh and spec a o ship; add a Pla onic suspicion o e “me e appea ances,” and hea icali y becomes a pejo a i e e m o some hing de i ed om, and pe haps also de imen al o a and socie y alike. As Thomas Pos lewai and T acy C. Da is nea ly pu i , i seems de ined by i s “excess and i s emp iness, i s su plus as well as i s lack” (2003, 4). 175 PERFORMANCE PHILOSOPHY VOL 2 (2) (2017) [2] By he wen ie h cen u y, howe e , hese e y quali ies would also de ine hea icali y in he a i ma i e. Newly conscious o i s speci ici y in he mode nis momen —in line wi h concu en o malisms o li e a iness o pic o iali y— he a o hea e now sough o enlis i s epis emological baggage o pe cep ion and appea ance in an on ology o exp essi e essence, eely capi alising on many quali ies his o ically cha ged agains i (Pos lewai and Da is 2003, 12; Ca lson 2002, 249). Thus he aes he ics o excess and emp iness could now ange om he ‘ ich’ o Ba oque o Wagne ian o he ‘poo ’ ba e essen ials o a B ech o a G o owski (see Paa olainen 2016a, on di ec o ial hea icali y). [3] Then again, bo h exp ession and essence a e p ecisely opposed o pe o ma i i y as Judi h Bu le in ends i , as a ‘ ei e a ion o no ms’ he e y his o ici y o which i aci ly ‘conceals o dissimula es’ as he na u al wo kings o p egi en en i ies (1993, 234, 12). Ins ead o ou ‘doings’ (s yles, clo hes, ges u es) me ely ex e io ising wha we essen ially ‘a e,’ o Bu le hey ‘e ec i ely cons i u e he iden i y hey a e said o exp ess o e eal’ (1988, 528). [4] Finally and somewha p oblema ically, he kind o cul u al agency o en che ished in Schechne - s yle Pe o mance S udies is ul ima ely mo e akin o J. L. Aus in’s ([1962] 1986) p agma ic ision o pe o ma i i y as he doing o hings, e ec i ely, no only wi h wo ds bu in he wo ld—he e, coupled wi h a sub e si e poli ics (condi ionally allowed by Bu le as well) ha is equally opposed o social discipline as i is o he nea -obsole e a o m o hea e. In sho , he concep ual posi ioning o he wo e ms is adically con ex ual and u e ly lexible (c . Jackson 2004, 6, 126), as bo h in u n may equally wo k o sus ain o dis up he powe s ha be. In one con ex , hea icali y is seen as essen ialised by mode nis ideals o sel -con ainmen and medium-speci ici y, in ano he , as obs uc ing aes he ic ‘abso p ion’ by i s e y ‘objec hood,’ and he e o e as co up i e o some alleged essence (be i o a , au hen ici y, na u e, li e, o li e a u e: c . F ied 1998; Ca lson 2002, 243, 246–7). In o he idioms, he ‘p isonhouse’ o hea icali y—as p oduc , in o e sion, ep esen a ion—gi es in o a concep ual ‘b eakou ’ o pe o mance—as p ocess, ex o e sion, p esence—ye soon he con ines o e-p esen a ion a e aken o e by hose o e-i e a ion. I e e he e was a con ining, p egi en iden i y ha he subjec wishes o escape, she can only pe o m ha escape pe o mam—“ h ough” a p egi en “ o m,” as he La in e ymology (ci ed in Sau e 2000, 38) sugges s. Pe haps, hen, he mo e o una e e ymology is ha o “ ho oughly u nishing” (pa o ni ), in he sense o b inging o h wha he es o his a icle will speci ically s i e o iden i y as di e en kinds o hea ical and pe o ma i e “ ex u es.” Pe o ma i ely, “ ex u e” names an eme gen pa e n ha is, howe e , only achie ed in he i e a i e p ocess o i s wea ing (no el y e sus no ma i i y again). Thea ically, i can be pe cei ed as he e y subs ance o as he me e su ace o some hing—con i ming he alidi y o wha is pe o med, o e ealing i as me e dissimula ion. Mo e gene ally, he language o ex u e helps us u n om igid seman ic condi ions (“ hea e”: hence d ama, s age, ac ing, iewing) o he mo e empo al o d ama u gical dynamics o hei discu si e and ma e ial “in e wea ing” (see Ba ba 1985; he impo an connec ion o ex u e and d ama u gy is u he elabo a ed in Paa olainen 2015). 176 PERFORMANCE PHILOSOPHY VOL 2 (2) (2017) In one sense, hen, I am only a guing o a change o me apho s—bu he e is a wis . While bo h hea icali y and pe o ma i i y ha e been used o add ess mo e abs ac phenomena o social exis ence, bo h also emain abs ac enough in hemsel es, so as o ul ima ely depend on mo e basic me apho s s ill, acco ding o he con ex and pu pose o hei a ying de ini ions ( ake he implied dis inc ion o seeing and doing; see also S a es 1996). The e o e I will s udy hem no as me apho ical sou ce domains o u he unde s anding, as has usually been he case (as in “All he wo ld’s a s age”), bu as hemsel es a ge domains, in e ec c ea ed by his o ically speci ic me apho s o spa iali y o conduc , pe cep ion o ac ion—by a changing se o ex a- hea ical quali ies, hemsel es a ibu ed wi h shi ing alues in di e en con ex s. In so saying, I do no in end me apho as me e igu es o speech—“ hea ical” in he sense o only embellishing o e lec ing some p e-exis ing eali y—bu ins ead as deeply pe o ma i e, in he sense o c ea ing he e y ex u es o hough we ake o be eal—es ablishing wha hey name while ende ing na u al hei means. Thus he e y possibili y o change lies in a ending o wha ou me apho s se e o hide o highligh , ins ead o me ely ei e a ing hose we a e accus omed o li e and ac by. (C . Lako and Johnson 1980; Paa olainen 2012, 6–7, 39; see also Paa olainen 2016b, on he a gued hea icali y and pe o ma i i y o cu en philosophies o embodied cogni ion.) And he e we e u n o Peppe and Ingold. In e ms o compe ing me apho s, he las decade o so o Ingold’s philosophical an h opology has explo ed wha he calls he ‘li e o lines’ (e ec i ely de i ed om Deleuze and Gua a i 1988) and hei ‘ agmen a ion—unde he sway o mode ni y— in o a succession o poin s o do s’ (Ingold 2007, 75). In his mos ecen wo k, Ingold p esen s he block and he kno as ‘mu ually exclusi e mas e - opes o desc ibing he cons i u ion o he wo ld, p edica ed on philosophies, espec i ely, o being and becoming’ (again, o building up o ca ying on). The challenge is ‘ o conside how a e e sion o he kno , a e a pe iod du ing which blocks, chains and con aine s ha e emained he pa amoun igu es o hough , could impac on ou unde s anding o ou sel es, o he hings we make and do, and o he wo ld we li e in.’ (Ingold 2015, 15; on “con ainmen ” in G o owski, Kan o , and Meye hold, see Paa olainen 2012.) No o a gue o any di ec co espondence, hese ou me apho s—block, chain, con aine , kno —a e s ikingly akin o he ou ‘ oo me apho s’ o Wes e n epis emology and aes he ics ha he Ame ican philosophe S ephen C. Peppe (1891–1972) explo ed in his 1942 book Wo ld Hypo heses. A his o ian o ideas and a philosophe o a and e hics—himsel a disciple o John Dewey—Peppe dismissed he a i udes o ‘u e skep icism’ and ‘u e dogma ism’ much as he did philosophical eclec icism, a guing ha a he ime only ou such hypo heses s ood ou as ‘ ela i ely adequa e’ in ‘scope and p ecision’—each wi h a dis inc oo me apho and heo y o u h, d awn om ‘common-sense’ expe ience. I o mis ic me apho s y o explain wha some hing is like (c . Ingold’s ca ego ical “con ainmen ”), hose o o ganicism, how his some hing de elops (Ingold’s “chains” unde s ood as p ocesses), and mechanis ic ones, how i wo ks (Ingold’s “building blocks” app oach), hen con ex ualis ic me apho s a e conce ned wi h how some hing—any hing—happens, occu s, o comes abou . (Peppe [1942] 1984.)1 While a ely acknowledged among he likes o Dewey o James, Peppe ’s “con ex ualis ic” elabo a ion o Ame ican p agma ism p o ides an a guably impo an p eceden o cu en philosophies o “becoming,” and as such, he mos gene al 177 PERFORMANCE PHILOSOPHY VOL 2 (2) (2017) d ama u gical amewo k o his a icle. As I will only e u n o i a he end, a e a cen al sec ion on Ingold, I conclude his in oduc o y bi by b ie ly in oducing i s cen al e ms and ca ego ies. As a icula ed in Wo ld Hypo heses (1942) and Aes he ic Quali y (1937), “con ex ualism” names o Peppe a p ocess on ology o cons an no el y and change, less o do wi h p agma ic ends han wi h he la ge con ex s in which such quali ies con inuously eme ge (pe haps, his choice o e ms was o downplay he o e ly ins umen alis in e p e a ions easily le elled a p agma is ene s). The speci ic oo me apho o his app oach is he ‘his o ic e en ’—no as a hing o he pas bu ‘ he e en in i s ac uali y,’ ‘ali e in i s p esen … when i is going on now, he dynamic d ama ic ac i e e en ’ ha e en ually can only be desc ibed by e bs ( a he han o mal simila i ies, o ganic wholes, o mechanical elemen s: Peppe [1942] 1984, 232). Fu he key dis inc ions a e be ween ‘ he quali y o a gi en e en [as] i s in ui ed wholeness o o al cha ac e ’ and ex u e as ‘ he de ails and ela ions which make [i ] up’ ([1942] 1984, 238). I educible o hie a chies o con en and o m o essence and appea ance, he wo a e ul ima ely in e wined bu may also be app oached as i hey we e sepa a e, by way o in ui ion and analysis espec i ely. Finally, i ‘wha e e di ec ly con ibu es o he quali y o a ex u e may be ega ded as a s and, whe eas wha e e indi ec ly con ibu es o i will be ega ded as con ex ’ ([1942] 1984, 246, my i alics), hen which is deemed which is ul ima ely a ma e o pe spec i e: up close, he e is a ex u e o e e y s and, while whole ex u es may appea as me e s ands om a a . In Peppe ’s e ms, such is he wo k o usion, e iden ‘whe e e a quali y is had’, ye o en obscu ing i s bo h empo al and ex u al sp ead ([1942] 1984, 239–46). Whe e usion gi es us ‘uni y’ (be i o ac ion o cha ac e —Ingold’s example o he kno ), he e he sp ead will con i m i s cons i u i e he e ogenei y (Ingold’s ‘p oli e a ion o loose ends’: Ingold 2013, 132). Wha I wish o a gue is ha such a language o o e lapping ex u es may equally accommoda e he a ious ensions o hea icali y and pe o ma i i y as ou lined abo e. In such e ms, in b ie , wha is pe o ma i ely na u alised will depend on widely sp ead con ex s o ei e a ion, bu o en akes a ho oughly used quali y in he p esen ; only occasionally may a no el s and o ac ion unde mine i s assumed no mali y. Con e sely, ins an s o hea icali y wo k o un a el such pe o ma i e s ands o hei local ex u es and pe haps o hei wide con ex s, in a quasi- heo e ical ope a ion ha may ende hei ela ions mo e pe cep ible bu only e e a he cos o his o ical speci ici y. I will e u n o some o hese p oposi ions in he inal sec ion o he a icle; o now, no e how his ‘shee ing cha ac e ’ o acing ou he s ands a hand also de ines Peppe ’s con ex ualis ic epis emology. On he one hand, ‘you ne e each he end o i ,’ on he o he , any e en can be analysed in ‘many equally e ealing ways … depending simply on wha s ands you ollow om he e en in o i s con ex ’: The eason o his is ha wha is analyzed is ca ego ically an e en , and he analysis o an e en consis s in he exhibi ion o i s ex u e, and he exhibi ion o i s ex u e is he disc imina ion o i s s ands, and he ull disc imina ion o i s s ands is he exhibi ion o o he ex u es … Con ex ualism is acco dingly some imes said o ha e a ho izon al cosmology in con as o o he iews, which ha e a e ical cosmology. The e is no op no bo om o he con ex ualis ic wo ld. (Peppe [1942] 1984, 249– 52) 178 PERFORMANCE PHILOSOPHY VOL 2 (2) (2017) S and 2. Ne wo k and Meshwo k: Tim Ingold’s Ecology o Lines and Becoming As sho hand e ms o speci ically hea ical and pe o ma i e ex u es, I now wish o ec ui Tim Ingold’s no ions o he ‘ne wo k’ and he ‘meshwo k’. I he pe o ma i e a gumen is o coex ensi i y o e ‘any o igina y no ion o in e io i y,’ as he sociologis Vikki Bell sugges s (2007, 11), hen Ingold’s c i ique o wha he dubs he mode n ‘logic o in e sion’ (2011a, 67) is p ecisely coex ensi e wi h he pe o ma i e c i ique o any na u alised sense o essen ial iden i y. Ra he han con e ing he ‘pa hways along which li e is li ed in o bounda ies wi hin which i is enclosed’ (2011a, 145), meshwo k names he becoming o hings in hei ongoing en anglemen . Thus emb acing he ‘pa adoxically cons i u i e plu ali y’ in which Bell sees he ‘p omise o pe o ma i i y,’ he concep would also seem o accoun o he c ea i i y and sel -o ganisa ion o ma e in which she sees a challenge o na owly psychic o cul u al no ions o pe o ma i i y (Bell 2007, 29, 20, 98, 114). In wha could amoun o a no el a icula ion o he ma e ialisa ion ha also unde gi ds Bu le ’s ‘bodies ha ma e ’ (1993), Ingold en isions en i onmen s and o ganisms alike as ‘meshwo ks o in e wo en lines,’ wi h ‘no insides o ou sides, only openings and ways h ough’. In u n, ecology is seen as ‘ he s udy o he li e o lines … w iggling ee o any classi ica ion … ailing loose ends in e e y di ec ion.’ (Ingold 2007, 103, 50; his is somewha di e en om he Gibsonian sense o ecology e.g. in Paa olainen 2012.) Clea ly such a wo ld e okes no only Ka en Ba ad’s ‘pos humanis pe o ma i i y’ (one o being “en angled,” wi h no “sel -con ained exis ence”: Ba ad 2007, ix, 66) bu also he insis ence, in Ac o - Ne wo k Theo y, ‘on he pe o ma i e cha ac e o ela ions and he objec s cons i u ed in hose ela ions’ (Law 1999, 7)—only in he meshwo k ‘ hings a e hei ela ions’ (Ingold 2011a, 70). As a speci ically ecological e m o philosophe and li e a y schola Timo hy Mo on, he mesh implies ‘ he in e connec edness o all li ing and non-li ing hings’ (2010, 28). ‘Vas ye in ima e’ (40), in ini e in bo h size and de ail (30), i ‘ex ends inside beings as well as among hem’ (39). Likewise in Ingold’s e ms, e e y o ganism is i sel ‘a issue o kno s, whose cons i uen s ands, as hey become ied up wi h o he s ands, in o he kno s, comp ise he meshwo k’; hus he meshwo k will ex end om he ‘o ganic issue … o ne e, muscle, [and] blood essels’ o he wide wea es o wea he and landscape which engul hem (2011a, 70, 86–7; on wea he , see speci ically 2015, 51–1112). In Peppe ’s e ms, e en i hei quali ies depend on speci ic s ands and con ex s case by case, he ex u al dynamics o ne wo ks and meshwo ks can also be c udely d awn—as hey a e in Figu e 1—and unlike Schechne ’s an and web o pe o mance, o example (Schechne 2003, x i–xix), de i e hei alue no om he nodes o kno s hey encompass, bu om how p ecisely hese a e wo en oge he in ‘ he connec ing o poin s’ and in ‘ he en anglemen o lines’ (Ingold 2007, 81–2). 179 PERFORMANCE PHILOSOPHY VOL 2 (2) (2017) Indeed, i is as empo al ‘lines o li e, g ow h and mo emen ’—o lines o ligh and becoming in he Deleuzo-Gua a ian pa lance which Ingold also ci es—‘ ha beings a e ins an ia ed in he wo ld’ ha he concei es o as meshwo ked h ough and h ough (Ingold 2011a, 63, 71). C i ically o he hinking o pe o ma i i y, no only may such image y di es he concep o he o e ly human- cen e ed associa ions some imes en e ained, bu also o any s ic di ision be ween wha I ha e e med c ea i e no el y and no ma i e ei e a ion. ‘“Issuing o h” along he lines o hei ela ionships,’ he hings o his wo ld en old i s la ge his o y wi hin hei cons i u ion and hus emain o he meshwo k, ‘wo en in o i s e y ab ic’ e en as hey ‘con ibu e o i s e e -e ol ing wea e’ (2011a, 71, 168, 120). ‘Kno ed oge he a he cen e bu ailing innume able “loose ends” a he pe iphe y,’ hei meshwo k is explici ly likened o he Deleuzeian hizome o haeccei y (2011a, 85–6). The one conc e e example ha Ingold himsel epea edly e u ns o is he spide ’s web o Figu e 1. As opposed o he supposed connec i i y o ne wo ks, ‘ he lines o he spide ’s web … do no connec poin s o join hings up,’ bu a he hey ‘lay down he condi ions o possibili y … along which i ac s and pe cei es’ (2011a, 85). (In his “social heo y o an h opods,” Ingold con as s he ANT o Ac o -Ne wo k Theo y wi h SPIDER, o “Skilled P ac ice In ol es De elopmen ally Embodied Responsi eness”: 2011a, 94.) In con as o hese mo e posi i e associa ions, Ingold’s no ion has ye o inco po a e wha we migh call ‘ he p ey’s pe spec i e’, o keep wi h he spide example. In Vikki Bell’s e ms, his equals he Foucauldian lines o powe and knowledge in which pe o med subjec s a e ‘caugh ’ and which hey a e p essed o ‘con inue o a leas o nego ia e’; as he ‘e ec s’ o which hey a e sus ained and which hey hemsel es sus ain; which hey ‘li e ally inco po a e’ ye mus also deny in o de o Figu e 1. Thea icali y and pe o ma i i y as abs ac ion and abso p ion: Ingold’s “ne wo k” o connec ed poin s and “meshwo k” o in e wo en lines, exempli ied by he globe (wi h geog aphic coo dina es) and he spide ’s web. D awing by au ho . 180 PERFORMANCE PHILOSOPHY VOL 2 (2) (2017) asse hemsel es as subjec s (Bell 2007, 4, 11–12, 17, 21). As dis inc om Ingold’s enabling sense o imme sion—wi h bodies ‘enligh ened, ensounded and en ap u ed’ ‘in he cu en s o a wo ld- in- o ma ion’ (2011a, 135, 129)—one is he e, in Bu le ’s wo ds, ‘in powe e en as one opposes i ’ (1993, 241, my i alics). Fu he mo e, as Mo on no es, mesh i sel has e ymological ‘an eceden s in mask and mass, sugges ing bo h densi y and decep ion,’ and may also deno e (ci ing he OED) ‘“a complex si ua ion o se ies o e en s in which a pe son is en angled; a conca ena ion o cons aining o es ic ing o ces o ci cums ances; a sna e”’ (2010, 28). Fo Ingold, howe e , wha a he ensna es ou hough is he popula image y o ne wo ks in which, ins ead o being ac i ely enac ed and en angled, ‘all lines [me ely] connec : objec s in o assemblies, des ina ions in o i ine a ies, le e s in o wo ds’ (2011b, 14). Wi h i s ‘ex ension o he ealms o mode n anspo and communica ions’ (2007, 80), ‘ he ne wo k me apho logically en ails ha he elemen s connec ed a e dis inguished om he lines o hei connec ion’ (2011a, 70), hings om hei ela ions. As ‘connec ions be ween one hing and ano he ’ (2011a, 91)— a he han expe ienced ‘along hei se e ally enmeshed ways o li e’ (2007, 103)— he lines o he ne wo k lack bo h du a ion and ma e ial p esence. Wha hey ‘connec up, in e e se’ (2011a, 215) a e essen ially educed o objec s (e ymologically “agains us,” no “wi h us” as hings would be in Ingold’s eading o Heidegge : 2011b, 5), while he ne wo k i sel emains ‘a pu ely spa ial cons uc ’ (2013, 132). Again, he one solid example ha Ingold epea edly e u ns o is he globe o Figu e 1. In e ing he meshwo ked wo ld i sel in o a con ained objec , he plane a y and he class oom a ian s alike a e o him he epi ome o deadly abs ac ion—‘a ull-scale model’ ha he o en, and no al oge he acciden ally, likens o ‘a s age se ’ (2011a, 117): [We] mus cease ega ding he wo ld as an ine subs a um, o e which li ing hings p opel hemsel es abou like coun e s on a boa d o ac o s on a s age … . [I me e objec s we e laid abou like] scene y on a s age … how could any hing li e o b ea he? … As in a s age se , … he appea ance is an illusion. Absolu ely no hing is going on. Only once he s age is se , and e e y hing made eady, can he ac ion begin. Bu he open wo ld ha c ea u es inhabi is no p epa ed o hem in ad ance. I is con inually coming in o being a ound hem. (Ingold 2011a, 71, 96, 117; o an ex ended example o hea ical in e sion, see 2015, 74–5) Then again, he e is a way o shedding such decidedly an i hea ical alences, inso a as Ingold’s ne wo ks o connec ed objec s—bu no his meshwo ks o in e wo en lines—can also be aken o a o d ocussed ac s o hea ical manipula ion: ac s o de-con ex ualisa ion ha speci ically enable he d awing o no el connec ions be ween he objec s hus abs ac ed ( he do s on he globe), on scales o ex u e dis inc ly below he de aul ne wo ks o socie y and in o ma ion, anspo and communica ion. In o he wo ds, he p ime ad an age o bo h he globe and he hea ical s age lies in hei synop ic aspec a he han he media ed one: hence also he link om he medie al hea um mundi o he mode n, spec a o ial unde s anding o he wo ld by way o a wo ld iew ( his Heidegge ian link is nea ly elabo a ed in McGilli ay 2008). Ingold himsel admi s as much elsewhe e, cas ing he ‘ opologies’ o meshwo k and ne wo k no as ‘mu ually exclusi e’ bu as pe spec i ally con ingen : 187 PERFORMANCE PHILOSOPHY VOL 2 (2) (2017) F ied, Michael. 1998. A and Objec hood: Essays and Re iews. Chicago: The Uni e si y o Chicago P ess. Gibson, James J. 1986. The Ecological App oach o Visual Pe cep ion. Hillsdale, NJ: Law ence E lbaum. Fi s published 1979. Hemmings, Jessica, ed. 2012. The Tex ile Reade . New Yo k: Be g. Ingold, Tim. 2007. Lines: A B ie His o y. Abingdon: Rou ledge. ———. 2011a. Being Ali e: Essays on Mo emen , Knowledge and Desc ip ion. Abingdon: Rou ledge. ———. 2011b. “In oduc ion.” In Red awing An h opology: Ma e ials, Mo emen s, Lines, edi ed by Tim Ingold, 1–20. Fa nham: Ashga e. ———. 2013. Making: An h opology, A chaeology, A and A chi ec u e. Abingdon: Rou ledge. ———. 2015. The Li e o Lines. Abingdon: Rou ledge. Jackson, Shannon. 2004. P o essing Pe o mance: Thea e in he Academy om Philology o Pe o ma i i y. Camb idge: Camb idge Uni e si y P ess. h ps://doi.o g/10.1017/CBO9780511554247 Lako , Geo ge, and Ma k Johnson. 1980. Me apho s We Li e By. Chicago: Uni e si y o Chicago P ess. Law, John. 1999. “A e ANT: complexi y, naming and opology.” In Ac o Ne wo k Theo y and A e , edi ed by John Law and John Hassa d, 1–14. Ox o d: Blackwell. h ps://doi.o g/10.1111/j.1467-954x.1999. b03479.x Massey, Do een. 2005. Fo Space. London and Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. McGilli ay, Glen. 2004. “Thea icali y: A C i ical Genealogy.” PhD Thesis, Uni e si y o Sydney. h p://ses.lib a y.usyd.edu.au/handle/2123/1428 ———. 2008. “Globing he Globe: Sep embe 11 and Thea ical Me apho .” Theo y & E en 11 (4). McKenzie, Jon. 2001. Pe o m o Else: F om Discipline o Pe o mance. New Yo k: Rou ledge. Mo on, Timo hy. 2010. The Ecological Though . Camb idge, MA: Ha a d Uni e si y P ess. Paasonen, Susanna. 2005. Figu es o Fan asy: In e ne , Women, and Cybe discou se. New Yo k: Pe e Lang. Paa olainen, Teemu. 2012. Thea e/Ecology/Cogni ion: Theo izing Pe o me -Objec In e ac ion in G o owski, Kan o , and Meye hold. Basings oke: Palg a e Macmillan. h ps://doi.o g/10.1057/9781137277923 ———. 2015. “Meaning in he Wea ing: Mapping and Tex u e as Figu es o Spa iali y and E en ness.” Mapping Thea e: No dic Thea e S udies 27 (2): 10–21. h p://ojs.s a sbiblio eke .dk/index.php/n s/a icle/ iew/24247 ———. 2016a. “Tex u es o Thea icali y: Th ee App oaches om Canonical Thea e Di ec o s.” In Tekijä — eos, esi ys ja yh eiskun a. Näy ämö & u kimus 6 [The Au ho : he six h yea book o he Finnish Thea e Resea ch Socie y], edi ed by Anne e A lande , Lau a G öndahl, and Ma ja Silde, 60–85. Helsinki: Tea e in u kimuksen Seu a. h p:// ea s. i/wp-con en /uploads/2017/02/TeaTS6_02_Fo ms-o -au ho ship.pd ———. 2016b. “Tex u es o Though : Thea icali y, Pe o ma i i y, and he Ex ended/Enac i e Deba e.” In The Cogni i e Humani ies: Embodied Mind in Li e a u e and Cul u e, edi ed by Pe e Ga a , 71–92. Basings oke: Palg a e Macmillan. h ps://doi.o g/10.1057/978-1-137-59329-0_5 Pa ke , Rozsika. 2010. The Sub e si e S i ch: Emb oide y and he Making o he Feminine. New ed. London: I. B. Tau is. Peppe , S ephen C. (1937) 1970. Aes he ic Quali y: A Con ex ualis ic Theo y o Beau y. Wes po , CT: G eenwood. ———. (1942) 1984. Wo ld Hypo heses: A S udy in E idence. Be keley, CA: Uni e si y o Cali o nia P ess. Pos lewai , Thomas, and T acy C. Da is. 2003. “Thea icali y: An In oduc ion.” In Thea icali y, edi ed by T acy C. Da id and Thomas Pos lewai , 1–39. Camb idge: Camb idge Uni e si y P ess. Puchne , Ma in. 2002. S age F igh : Mode nism, An i-Thea icali y, and D ama. Bal imo e: Johns Hopkins Uni e si y P ess. 188 PERFORMANCE PHILOSOPHY VOL 2 (2) (2017) Reinel , Janelle. 2002. “The Poli ics o Discou se: Pe o ma i i y mee s Thea icali y.” SubS ance 31 (2–3): 201–15. h ps://doi.o g/10.1353/sub.2002.0037 Ridou , Nicholas. 2006. S age F igh , Animals, and O he Thea ical P oblems. Camb idge: Camb idge Uni e si y P ess. h ps://doi.o g/10.1017/CBO9780511617669 Sau e , Willma . 2000. The Thea ical E en : Dynamics o Pe o mance and Pe cep ion. Iowa Ci y: Uni e si y o Iowa P ess. Schechne , Richa d. 2003. Pe o mance Theo y. Re . and expanded ed. New Yo k: Rou ledge. Sedgwick, E e Koso sky. 2003. Touching Feeling: A ec , Pedagogy, Pe o ma i i y. Du ham: Duke Uni e si y P ess. S a es, Be O. 1985. G ea Reckonings in Li le Rooms: On he Phenomenology o Thea e . Be keley: Uni e si y o Cali o nia P ess. ———. 1996. “Pe o mance as Me apho .” Thea e Jou nal 48 (1): 1–26. h ps://doi.o g/10.1353/ j.1996.0021 Webe , Samuel. 2004. Thea icali y as Medium. New Yo k: Fo dham Uni e si y P ess. h ps://doi.o g/10.5422/ so/9780823224159.001.0001 Biog aphy Teemu Paa olainen is a pos doc o al esea ch ellow a he Cen e o P ac ice as Resea ch in Thea e, Uni e si y o Tampe e. His Thea e/Ecology/Cogni ion: Theo izing Pe o me -Objec In e ac ion in G o owski, Kan o , and Meye hold was published by Palg a e Macmillan in 2012. He has jus inished he d a manusc ip o ano he esea ch monog aph, en a i ely i led Tex u e: Thea icali y and Pe o ma i i y om a D ama u gical Pe spec i e. Wo k on his p ojec , including his a icle, has been gene ously unded by he Academy o Finland and he Finnish Cul u al Founda ion. © 2017 Teemu Paa olainen Excep whe e o he wise no ed, his wo k is licensed unde a C ea i e Commons A ibu ion- NonComme cial-Sha eAlike 4.0 In e na ional License.