Literature is Performance

In Sociology there is a theory regarding what is called “front behavior.” In Erving Goffman’s “Regions and Region Behavior,” Goffman explains that people act in different “regions” or spheres of interaction. “The presence of other persons, some aspects of the activity are expressively accentuated and other aspects, which might discredit the fostered impression, are suppressed” (Goffman, 106). The theory as a whole is essentially that people present a “front” in various social situations (what Goffman calls “regions”). This idea makes sense. When you speak to a professor, you usually talk differently than when you talk to someone at a party.

In class on Friday, we raised two related questions: is language performative? And is literature performative in a similar way? I propose that both of these are true, and that literature is especially performative. But first, I will have to explain a little.

In “Discourse in the Novel,” Mikhail Bakhtin expands on the idea of an author “framing” a work. He proposes that various forms of language “involve specific forms for manifesting intentions, forms for making conceptualization and evaluation concrete” (Bakhtin, 289). This suggests that an author has some level of control over what “front” he presents to his readers. Walter Ong would likely agree with this idea. In “The Writer’s Audience is Always a Fiction,” Ong proposes that the writer forms a frame with which to address his/her audience, “the writer must construct in his imagination…audience cast in some sort of role” (Ong, 12). The audience must then accept that frame, “…the audience must correspondingly fictionalize itself” (Ong, 12). This suggests that the writer has some level of performative control.

If a writer forms a frame through which a reader will view a work, what does that mean for signification? Many of the thinkers we have read have expressed concern over the instability of language and symbolic meaning (Locke, Richards and Ogden, Bakhtin, etc.). Bakhtin offers a slightly different approach than Lock and Richards and Ogden. He proposes, or seems to suggest, that language can be controlled to a certain extent by using this concept of framing. When using Charles Dickens as a case study, Bakhtin shows that authors can frame to derive more clearly defined meaning. This meaning is partially achieved through a process that Bakhtin calls unmasking, “ The whole point here is to expose the real basis for such glorification, which is to unmask the chorus’ hypocrisy” (Bakhtin, 304).

In order to use this frame, however, the author must “perform.” Every writer knows that each new piece of literature they work on demands the usage of a certain kind of style, a certain kind of performance. Like Bakhtin says, writers use “double-voiced discourse” meaning they use “the direct intention of the character who is speaking, and the refracted intention of the author” (Bakhtin, 324). This is to say that the author uses frames to convey meaning. These frames function like Goffman’s fronts. They are interpretive lenses. In a way, these frames offer a control similar to that so desired by Richards and Ogden in their piece on the issues of symbolic communication.

In any case, the author may not use their actual voice to communicate their intention. This is for two reasons: A) All people engage in front behavior and if we assume authors are creating an audience, they are also going to perform for that audience. B) The author must utilize frames with which to offer a more exact determination of their meaning and will use whatever tools necessary in order to do this. Bakhtin remarks on this in his article which mentions that comic novels especially are good at "organizing heteroglossia" (Bakhtin, 301). In any case, it is safe to say that literature is performative, given that all writers perform when writing.