Loading field map
Performance Studies emerged from a fundamental tension: is performance a distinct art form to be perfected, or is it a mode of analysis that can illuminate all human behavior? This question has driven the field since the 1960s, when two concurrent developments—Performance Art as an avant-garde practice and the academic framework of Performance Studies (Schechner-Turner)—established the field's founding scope. Over the following decades, the field expanded through social application, intercultural exchange, postcolonial critique, and feminist theory, before confronting the digital transformation of liveness itself. Today, the most influential frameworks are Performativity (Butler), Postcolonial Theater, and Digital and Virtual Performance, though they remain in productive disagreement about whether performance is primarily discursive or material.
Performance Art arose in the 1960s as artists rejected the commodified art object in favor of ephemeral, body-based actions. Figures like Marina Abramović and Allan Kaprow used their own bodies as medium and subject, staging durational or confrontational events that could not be bought or sold. Performance Art treated the live act as the artwork itself, not as a representation of something else. This was a radical break from theater's tradition of scripted narrative: Performance Art had no fixed text, no character, and often no audience separation.
At nearly the same moment, Richard Schechner and Victor Turner developed Performance Studies as an academic framework. Schechner, a theater director and scholar, and Turner, an anthropologist, argued that performance was not limited to the stage. Rituals, sports, political rallies, and everyday social interactions could all be analyzed as performances. Their key concept—"restored behavior" or "twice-behaved behavior"—held that all performance involves the repetition of learned actions, whether in a theater or a wedding ceremony. This framework vastly expanded the object of study: anything could be studied as performance.
Performance Art and Performance Studies (Schechner-Turner) coexisted and influenced each other. Performance Art provided a living laboratory of experimental practice; Schechner and Turner provided the theoretical language to analyze it. But they differed in emphasis: Performance Art was primarily an artistic movement concerned with aesthetic experience, while Performance Studies was an academic discipline concerned with understanding human behavior. This tension between art and analysis would persist throughout the field's history.
Applied Theater and Performance emerged in the 1970s as a practical offshoot of the Schechner-Turner paradigm. Where Schechner and Turner studied performance as a category of human behavior, Applied Theater practitioners used performance as a tool for social intervention—in prisons, schools, hospitals, and community centers. Augusto Boal's Theater of the Oppressed, for example, turned spectators into "spect-actors" who could rehearse resistance to oppression. Applied Theater narrowed the field's focus from analyzing all performance to using performance for social change. It absorbed the Schechner-Turner insight that performance is everywhere, but redirected it toward explicit political and educational goals.
Intercultural Performance emerged in the 1980s as globalization intensified contact between theatrical traditions. Directors like Peter Brook and Ariane Mnouchkine drew on Asian, African, and Indigenous performance forms, creating hybrid works that blended movement styles, vocal techniques, and narrative structures. Intercultural Performance extended the Schechner-Turner framework by treating cultural difference itself as a performance to be staged and studied. But it also provoked criticism: did these exchanges genuinely respect source traditions, or did they appropriate them for Western audiences? This question would soon be taken up by a more critical framework.
Postcolonial Theater emerged in the 1980s alongside Intercultural Performance but from a sharply different political stance. Where Intercultural Performance often celebrated hybridity as a creative resource, Postcolonial Theater insisted that cultural exchange cannot be separated from histories of colonialism, racism, and economic inequality. Playwrights and theorists such as Ngũgĩ wa Thiong'o and Derek Walcott used performance to reclaim suppressed histories, challenge Western theatrical norms, and assert the legitimacy of indigenous forms. Postcolonial Theater transformed the field by insisting that performance is always embedded in power relations. It did not reject the Schechner-Turner framework outright, but it demanded that any analysis of performance attend to who has the power to stage, represent, and define.
Performativity (Butler) arrived in 1990 with Judith Butler's Gender Trouble, shifting the field's center of gravity. Butler argued that gender is not an identity one has but a performance one does—a repeated set of acts that produce the illusion of a stable self. This was a fundamental departure from Schechner and Turner. For Schechner, performance was intentional behavior that could be analyzed as "restored behavior." For Butler, performance was not a choice but a compulsory repetition enforced by social norms. Performativity (Butler) absorbed the Schechner-Turner insight that performance is constitutive of social reality, but it replaced the idea of a performing subject with the idea of a subject constituted through performance. This framework made performance studies central to feminist theory, queer theory, and critical race studies. It remains one of the field's most influential frameworks today.
Postcolonial Theater and Performativity (Butler) shared a critical orientation: both insisted that performance is never neutral, always shaped by power. But they differed in emphasis. Postcolonial Theater focused on collective histories of colonization and resistance, often working through narrative and character. Performativity (Butler) focused on the micro-level of bodily repetition and subject formation, often working through philosophical argument. Together, they pushed the field away from the descriptive, anthropological stance of Schechner and Turner toward a more explicitly political and theoretical mode of inquiry.
Digital and Virtual Performance emerged around 2000 as new technologies—motion capture, virtual reality, live streaming, social media—transformed what performance could be. Performers could now appear as avatars, audiences could participate from anywhere, and the boundary between live and recorded became porous. Digital and Virtual Performance disrupted the field's founding assumption that performance requires co-present bodies. It also extended Performativity (Butler)'s insights about identity construction: online, users perform multiple selves across platforms, and those performances have real social effects. But Digital and Virtual Performance also raises materialist questions that Performativity (Butler) does not fully address: what happens to the body when performance becomes digital? How do algorithms and platform ownership shape who can perform and how?
Today, the leading frameworks are Performativity (Butler), Postcolonial Theater, and Digital and Virtual Performance. They agree on several points: performance is constitutive of identity, not merely expressive; power relations are embedded in all performance; and the field must attend to marginalized voices. But they disagree on what performance ultimately is. Performativity (Butler) treats performance as a discursive process of subject formation. Postcolonial Theater treats performance as a site of historical struggle and cultural memory. Digital and Virtual Performance treats performance as a technologically mediated event that challenges the very idea of liveness. This materiality-versus-discourse debate—is performance primarily a bodily event or a discursive effect?—remains the field's central unresolved tension.
Performance Art continues as a living artistic tradition, now often intersecting with digital media. Applied Theater and Performance remains active in community and educational settings, drawing on both the Schechner-Turner legacy and postcolonial critique. Intercultural Performance persists but has become more self-critical, incorporating postcolonial questions about power and appropriation. The Schechner-Turner paradigm, while no longer dominant, provided the foundational infrastructure that made all later frameworks possible. Performance Studies today is a pluralistic field, shaped by the ongoing conversation between these frameworks.