Readings by: Mervyn Jones; Gary K. Waite

1. What was the socio-cultural function of the feasts of Corpus Christi? How did these festivals serve as celebrations of "the body"? What socio-political groups interestes were served by the festivities?

The interesting thing about Corpus Christi is that this ritual serves as a resolution to differentiation where creating social connectedness or a sense of social wholeness is more or less a means to cure social disorder. This occasion is most important to followers of Christ because of the unity or feeling of unity that is brought to the public. During this ritual performance a mass takes place where the feast is celebrated. The feast honors the Eucharist where believers actually believe the feast to be the body and blood of Christ (celebrating "the host"-the bread is called the host) . The structure of precedence and authority are made present in the town by the performance of pageants, spiritual scenes and incidents including: mute shows, some speeches, and natural symbols of social order that work to create representations of the psychosomatic self and the natural as well as the social body. This ritual serves as a representation for possibilities of advancement in society through performance as well as a form of entertainment for lower classes. Another interesting point to bring up is that these performances were created to help convert people to christianity and by spreading the word people can see hope for changing their current circumstances.

2. How didi performance serve as a way of achieving and maintaining social status?

Christ as a social body is made clear through the final prayer of the feast where this act creates a sense of unity or "communitas". There would be a lack of social order/structure without the nature of authority or status differentiation. Although this ritual serves as a form of entertainment for the commons it also reinforces the people in roles of authority or people who have power and wealth. Therefore the socio-cultural function of the feasts of Corpus Christi connect and extend relationships both inside and outside of the community creating shared beliefs and understandings about the psychosomatic self and this idea of a unified society regardless of social differentiation. Basically in order to counter the status/social disorder and move toward an improved new order, the feasts of Corpus Christi serve as a tool that creates a sense of optimism among participants, optimism that creates this idea of mobility and a sense of advancement in social hierarchy. I think this is extremely important in setting up social order and control because now people think they are involved in their ranks in society and they have a choice, because they now have to power to move up or down this ladder instead of being stuck on one side or the other.

3. How "rhetorical" were the Chambers of Rhetoric? What groups were free to use this performance venue as a medium for social critique and self expression? Were these organizations capable of true subversion of dominant contemporary values and institutions?

The Chambers of Rhetoric had a considerable influence in the reformation of ideas. Only literate burghers could transfer information from the lower classes, so in essence they served as filters of information. This can get tricky when you think about how information could get skewed to serve special interests and more importantly the information being transferred was rarely separated from the Roman Catholic Church. Rhetoricians used their drama as propagandistic reform. Moreover, rhetoricians of the Netherlands played major roles in the spread of discontent and of nascent revolutionary ideology. Right before the Renaissance World War I took place in this area. Groups of people would meet and teach others how to read, write, and speak. Spreading literacy is extremely important when trying to challenge current ideologies. In this area common people had to take on leadership roles and present themselves with confidence in order to engage in upward mobility. By questioning authority, change can occur and for the Rederijkers (rhetoricians) questioning what is already in place creates a space for change. The Chambers of Rhetoric were people who were heavily invested in the status quo, they were radicals for democracy and wanted to promote upward mobility for lower classes. If we do not have the ability to question what is currently taking place in our society then we do not have the ability to make change happen, and if we cannot change our current conditions then we may never know if societal conditions can improve.

4. What, in your opinion, truly lead to the downfall of the mystery plays and Chamber of Rhetoric? Are there contemporary parallels to these middle-class urban performance groups?

Straying away from social order and questioning those in power lead to stricter policies and a stricter environment in attempts of controlling the lower levels of hierarchy and in hopes of maintaining social ordinance even the status quo. In the attempt at controlling the public and maintaining current conditions the harder laws created more disruptions that justified the revolt. Lower levels of class/society dramatized current norms in order to promote change. More often than not when people enact in radical behavior there is a higher chance of recognition.

History of Performance readings for 2/2/10

What role did women play in performance of cultural texts in this era? Why were there differences between the performative roles of men and women? Were the contributions of one gender valued more highly than the other?

Although there are role variations that exist between men and women during this pre-Christian period both genders performed on the battlefield. When I think about the role that women play in society today, it is easy to draw connections from the past. According to Conquergood, barbarian women theatricalized performance on the sidelines. The women observed and supported the men and encouraged their bravery. Conquergood explained a woman's role as a monitor of masculine behavior. In a sense, women participated in distracting behavior in order to interfere with performance of opposing forces. A great example we discussed in class that is comparable to the role women played in warlike situations is a football game, where we have cheerleaders/fans showing support from the sidelines. Women also contributed to educational aspects of cultural texts in this era. Male performance is valued higher than women in terms of performance but as for one gender being more highly valued than the other I don't think either would be the same without the other. As we discussed in class the two exist in combination with the one another.

Why did the Church have a difficult time co-opting the performance styles of the Anglo-Saxons as a vehicle for spreading Christianity? Why was the church so heavily invested in literacy?

The Church had a difficult time blending the performance styles of the Anglo-Saxons because the Scop's performance style was highly theatrical, arresting, perhaps even ecstatic , the Scop changed attitudes, characterizations, and voices during performance where characters did not maintain consistency, and lastly the Scop's performance was more dramatic than melodic and brought on another type of narrative called the commune or mixture of styles (Conquergood). The pull of oral traditions and the cultural values show implications of this power struggle existing between the Anglo-Saxon practices. Foucault explained, "In every society the production of discourse is at once controlled, selected, organized and redistributed by a certain number of procedures whose role is to ward off its powers and dangers, to gain mastery over its chance events, to evade its ponderous, formidable materiality." Conquergood goes on to explain that the Church was so invested in literacy because the Church wanted to control vernacular oral traditions. This provides us evidence of the clash between oral and literate cultures. If the Church could control the spread of literacy then this would serve as a tool to control the public as well. Conquergood explained that the literacy of books and scripts serve as a technology for control and strategy for containment which has profound societal effects. Eventually the clash of oral traditions develop dialectical energy and become together a generator of cultural standards. I think that in order to set expectations you must first understand why expectations must be put in place, therefore without Christian opposition to secular oral traditions the blending of the performance styles might not have been possible. I think back to reading Burke, you cannot know what is good without first knowing what is bad. The same is true in this case, you cannot create one without the other. Conquergood quoted Burke saying, "a way of life is an acting-together; and in acting-together, men have common sensations, concepts, images, ideas, attitudes that make them consubstantial." We only live to learn together through the act of living together.

During this era, was there a separation between popular culture and high culture in performance? Were there differences between what each respective audience expected from performance?

There was little to no separation between pop culture and high culture in performance during this time because there was little hierarchy in place during this period.