This article was downloaded by: [HEAL-Link Consortium]

On: 20 May 2010

Access details: Access Details: [subscription number 793285000]
Publisher Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-
41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Contemporary Theatre Review

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713639923

Between Derrida and Grotowski

Duncan Jamieson

To cite this Article Jamieson, Duncan(2007) 'Between Derrida and Grotowski', Contemporary Theatre Review, 17: 1, 59 —
69
To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/10486800601096071
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10486800601096071

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or
systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or
distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents
will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses
should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss,
actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly
or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
 Contemporary Theatre Review, Vol. 17(1), 2007, 59 – 69

Between Derrida and Grotowski

Duncan Jamieson
Downloaded By: [HEAL-Link Consortium] At: 06:53 20 May 2010

In this essay, I aim to outline some conditions through which a

productive encounter between Jacques Derrida and Jerzy Grotowski
might take place. Initially, I describe the context for this exchange, then
proceed by arguing that the increased orientation around ethics and
politics in deconstructive discourse should provoke us to reassess the
place of Derrida’s work in performance theory. Having interrogated
prevailing conceptions of its practical utility, in the final sections I draw
on areas of deconstruction that have been widely omitted in relation to
performance, working through some initial aspects of the encounter itself
and pointing to ways in which it might be made more concrete and
specific.

1. Antonio Attisani, from BACKGROUND

his presentation at an
‘intervention’ of the
Workcenter of Jerzy There have been at least two instances within Grotowski scholarship in
Grotowski and which such an encounter has been proposed. At an ‘intervention’ of the
Thomas Richards,
University of Kent, Workcenter of Jerzy Grotowski and Thomas Richards in 2005, Antonio
Canterbury, UK, 7 Attisani argued that Grotowski’s work should be viewed as ‘texts, in the
January 2005.
sense of Jacques Derrida’. He did not provide a detailed elaboration of
2. Halina Filipowicz,
this notion of ‘text’, continuing only by suggesting that both men
‘Where is Gurutowski?’ created their respective work ‘with love’ and that deconstruction would
in Richard Schechner be useful in investigating unexplored contradictions within ‘Grotowski’s
and Lisa Wolford
(eds), The Grotowski legacy’.1
Sourcebook, rev. In an earlier essay, first published in 1991, Halina Filipowicz suggested
paperback edn
(London and New
deconstruction as a strategy for ‘examining . . . creative tensions
York: Routledge, and productive interactions between the contradictory elements in
2001), pp. 404–408 Grotowski’s work’.2 Her argument was a self-styled counterpoint to the
(p. 407). Emphasis in
the original. ‘assumption of unity’ which she located in Zbigniew Osiński’s essay

Contemporary Theatre Review ISSN 1048-6801 print/ISSN 1477-2264 online

Ó 2007 Taylor & Francis http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
DOI: 10.1080/10486800601096071
 60

‘Grotowski Blazes the Trails’, and perceived as symptomatic of a wider

trend in Grotowski studies. Filipowicz contended that ‘Osiński and other
scholars as well propose a premodernist reading of a postmodern thinker’,
and outlined the potential role of deconstruction thus: ‘Deconstruction
may allow us to unravel the central contradiction in [Grotowski’s] work:
like the literary and philosophical texts of the Western culture, it contains
both what may be called metaphysics and the putting in question of
3. Ibid., p. 408. metaphysics’.3
There is a noticeable emphasis on contradiction from both Attisani
and Filipowicz, which appears directed towards a certain closure, or
desire for restitution, within the metaphysical discourse surrounding
Grotowski’s work. Osiński, for example, asserts that ‘polarity and duality
4. Zbigniew Osiński, [are] joined again in a state of complete unity’4 in the practice to which
‘Grotowski Blazes the he has been witness, and Filipowicz is clearly concerned to address what
Trails’, in The
Grotowski Sourcebook, is excluded by this conception of a harmonious whole.5 Although I am
pp. 385–400 (p. 395). also concerned with this area, I am interested in a more general
encounter with deconstruction here. I contend that there are many
Downloaded By: [HEAL-Link Consortium] At: 06:53 20 May 2010

5. Filipowicz specifically
names deconstruction potentially productive areas of exchange to be investigated, including
and feminism as articulations of ‘ethics’, self-presence and via negativa, the relationship
potential approaches
that could be
between structure and subjectivity, and notions of the ‘gift’6 and the
employed to broaden ‘messianic’. An encounter with Derrida could be particularly useful in
the range of critical helping us to examine the complex relationship between metaphysics
commentary on
Grotowski’s work. and practice in Grotowski’s work and this is an area to which we will
Given their history of return later.
engagement with the
kinds of ontological
The expansion of perspectives on Grotowski is not all that is at stake,
schema and vocabulary however. Also central to my investigation is the problem of how we are
used by Osiński, we to conceive of action, agency and responsibility, in practical terms, given
can see how she might
have envisioned a role the destabilisation and introspection that deconstruction demands of the
for these discourses ‘human subject’. Performance theorists drawing on Derrida’s work must,
here.
by extension, consider such issues, particularly if investigating the
6. The ‘gift’, understood
implications of his later, ‘ethically-orientated’ texts. In terms of
as a total and deconstruction’s relevance for performance process and for practice in
uneconomical giving, general, it is important that the encounter with Grotowski be a genuine
without reserve, is a
particularly significant exchange, with Derrida pressed on traditional ‘weak-spots’, such as
theme for both embodiment and action.
Derrida and
Grotowski. Derrida
There remains the question of how to proceed with deconstruction,
deals with the subject and neither Attisani nor Filipowicz addresses this in any detail. Their
at length in many later arguments are tantalising pointers to studies yet to be undertaken, which
works, especially in
Given Time, trans. would require clarification of ‘texts’, ‘contradictory elements’ and
Peggy Kamuf ‘postmodern’; of which ‘deconstruction’ would be employed to conduct
(Chicago and London:
University of Chicago the investigation; and which elements of Grotowski’s work were to be
Press, 1994), whilst examined, to name only a few initial considerations. Although I aim to
Grotowski has always address this issue of methodology, like them I am restricted to
been unequivocal in
stating the importance pointing towards further research here; to creating a framework rather
of the ‘gift’ than following the detailed consequences of any exchange. In terms
throughout the phases
of his work. He asserts, of the encounter as I have formulated it, the initial task must be a
for example, that it is a reappraisal of Derrida’s place in performance theory, without which the
concept ‘che bisogno
toccare parlando di
opposition between Grotowski’s assertion of ‘presence’ and Derrida’s
[Ryszard] Ciéslak’ ‘postmodern’ play, as conventionally characterised, will simply be
(upon which one must perpetuated.
 61

touch in speaking of ‘APPLICATIONS’ – DECONSTRUCTION

Ciéslak), referring to
his close work with the AND PERFORMANCE
leading actor of the
Teatr Laboratorium.
See Jerzy Grotowski, There have been several explicit attempts to analyse the implications of
‘Discorso del Dottore deconstruction for performance. I propose a brief detour through this
honoris causa Jerzy
Grotowski’, in Janusz
field in order to examine how deconstruction has been adapted into
Degler, Grzegorz performance theory and address certain issues of interpretation, with the
Ziółkowski, Marina aim of establishing how best to approach Derrida’s work in developing
Fabbri and Renata
Molinari (eds), Essere our encounter.
un uomo totale Immediate questions arise in any consideration of deconstruction and
(Corrazzano, Pisa:
Titivillus Edizioni,
performance: what source material and methodology should be
2005), pp. 45–54 employed in developing a relation between them? What should such an
(p. 48). engagement produce? Performance theorists have responded by drawing
on a remarkably homogenous body of sources, focusing almost
exclusively on Derrida’s texts prior to 1982 and on the literary reception
of his work. We must consider why this is the case, since the majority of
Derrida’s publications have appeared since, including his most explicit
Downloaded By: [HEAL-Link Consortium] At: 06:53 20 May 2010

treatments of ethics, politics and embodiment. In fact, this later work

would seem highly relevant to concerns that performance theorists, and
other commentators, have advanced regarding the practical utility of
deconstruction.
I will suggest two reasons for this limited focus here. The first is the
widespread perception that deconstruction as a ‘method’, was outlined in
the three texts signalling Derrida’s ‘arrival’ in France in 1967: Speech and
Phenomena, Writing and Difference and Of Grammatology. It should be
noted that the word ‘deconstruction’ appears few times within them, and
not as a key term. Further publications in 1972 and 1977 could be added
to this core. Along with early critical guides and works by the ‘Yale
deconstructionists’, these have formed a kind of canon, shaping the
perception of Derrida’s work within both literary and performance
theory. The second is a reliance on secondary literature, which is
particularly relevant to Derrida’s reception in these two fields. This
reliance could be explained by many factors, such as the difficulty of
7. As the philosopher Derrida’s style(s), his complex system of references,7 and the demand for
Thomas Baldwin
comments, ‘If you’re
a secure deconstructive method.8 The controversy surrounding decon-
not familiar with the struction has served to promote a generalised understanding of Derrida’s
work he’s starting own arguments, which are often identified with reductive slogans such as
from, you’ve got twice
the work to do’. From ‘all reading is misreading’ by supporters and detractors alike.
his presentation on I am not suggesting that we can simply resolve the situation by
‘Derrida’s Legacy’ at
the Tate Modern,
following Derrida more closely. However, for our purposes, certain of his
London, 2 February arguments must be more rigorously identified, considered and chal-
2005. In performance lenged. The lack of attention to his later texts in performance theory is
theory, Roger
Copeland asks us to significant insofar as it marginalises the ‘ethical’ aspects of deconstruc-
‘bear with me (or him tion, despite their relevance to questions of method and practice. This
[Derrida])’ when
explaining a passage
ethical dimension is crucial to any application, since in the absence of
from Of a deconstructive ‘method’, it is what might enable Derridean discourse
Grammatology and to be purposeful and ‘productive’. We will soon encounter some
Stratos E.
Constantinidis consequences of this omission.
orientates the style of Performance theorists have usually been interested in deconstruction
his book Theatre under
as a tool for approaching questions of representation and presence, with
 62

Deconstruction? many readings advocating a broadly liberal attitude towards issues such as
around his concerns
with Derrida’s the ‘playwright’s intentions’, the ‘director’s interpretation’ and the
obscurity and specific actor’s ‘self’. Gerald Rabkin, Elinor Fuchs, Roger Copeland and Philip
terminology. See
Copeland’s ‘The Auslander, following Derrida’s example in his treatment of language, all
Presence of consider the problem of the strict determinability (or self-evident
Mediation’, The
Drama Review, 34:4
‘presence’) of certain of these ideas. However, the perception that
(Winter 1990), 28–44 Derrida is against any notion of presence or stability and concerned only
(p. 36), and with forms of textual play restricts his employment in performance theory
Constantinidis’,
Theatre under and practice, in which some aspect of ‘presence’ almost invariably plays
Deconstruction? A an essential role.9 The central difficulty in relating deconstruction to
Question of Approach
(London: Garland,
issues of process is described by Blau, who writes: ‘I suspect that very few
1993), pp. xiv–xv. who talk about [involving ‘‘postmodern’’ theory in practice] have ever
been at a rehearsal, particularly the kind of rehearsal that approximates
8. Such a ‘method’ is not the more radical implications of theory. Here, I am thinking of notions of
forthcoming from
Derrida himself. He limitless difference, undecidability, structures of ‘‘unmotivatedness’’, the
provides no a priori agile slants and breakings off of thought . . .’10 Blau’s point marks a
model of how a
divide that is highly relevant to our encounter – one that might be
Downloaded By: [HEAL-Link Consortium] At: 06:53 20 May 2010

deconstructive reading
should proceed, and better approached, in the first instance, by broadening the limited
states that he ‘never bibliographical and methodological focus on deconstruction in perfor-
offered anything in
terms of ‘‘this is what mance theory. In the next section, we will examine a further aspect of
you have to know’’ or deconstruction’s problematic theory/practice relation more closely with
‘‘this is what you have
to do’’’. See Jacques reference to Auslander’s essay ‘‘‘Just Be Your Self’’: Logocentrism and
Derrida, ‘Hospitality, Difference in Performance Theory’.11
Justice and
Responsibility’, in
Richard Kearney and
Mark Dooley (eds), THE (IM)PRACTICALITY OF ‘PURE’ DIFFÉRANCE
Questioning Ethics:
Contemporary Debates
in Philosophy (London Interestingly, for my ultimate purposes in analysing it, there are two
and New York:
Routledge, 1999),
different, published versions of Auslander’s essay. In both, he attempts a
pp. 65–83 (p. 74). deconstructive reading of foundational concepts in the acting theories
of Stanislavsky, Brecht and Grotowski, directing his analysis towards
9. Where Derrida’s work terminology that reinforces these concepts in practice and ques-
has been related to
performance practice, tioning the authority by which we trace notions of ‘self’ back through
it has been almost performance.
exclusively connected
to fragmentary, self-
Derrida’s ‘différance’ is Auslander’s main deconstructive reference-
consciously ‘textual’ point – a neologism coined to simultaneously incorporate the senses of
production aesthetics; ‘difference’ and ‘deferral’. Différance refers to the production of meaning
perhaps
understandably, given through the interaction of expressive units (difference, after Saussure)
his best-known styles and their repeated grafting into different contexts, preventing a definitive
of expression. See, for
example, Copeland’s
signification based on those units (deferral). Derrida insists that this
article ‘The Presence production – the differential interaction of an open-ended network –
of Mediation’. accounts for the intelligibility of concepts and thoughts, and that we
cannot maintain the classical model of a stable meaning separable from its
10. Herbert Blau, To All
Appearances (New articulation.
York and London: Auslander contends that Derrida’s critique ‘has broad applications to
Routledge, 1992),
pp. 41–42.
performance theory’. His further assertion that ‘we often treat acting as
philosophers treat language – as a transparent medium which provides
11. There are two access to truth, logos or a grounding concept’ provides the basis for the
published versions of essay.12 He proceeds by interrogating dependencies that he locates in
this essay to which I
the work of each practitioner, but does not consequently attempt to
 63

will refer: Philip

Auslander, ‘‘‘Just Be
undermine the entire validity of their theories.13 I will not repeat the
Your Self’’: movements through which he formulates this interrogation here. What
Logocentrism and particularly interests me is the problem he reaches at the end, and this is
Difference in
Performance Theory’, where his two accounts significantly diverge. Beginning with the first, he
in Phillip B. Zarrilli extends his meditation on Derrida to speculating about possible ‘post-
(ed.), Acting
(Re)Considered:
Derridean’ acting practices. He suggests transposing Derrida’s occasional
Theories and Practices technique of writing ‘under erasure’14 to performance and also mentions
(London: Routledge, the Open Theater’s ‘style Transformation’ exercise, in which genres and
1995), pp. 59–68, and
‘‘‘Just Be Your Self’’: roles are transformed throughout the course of improvisations. The latter
Logocentrism and is rejected as ‘post-Derridean’ however, as Auslander argues that multiple
Difference in
Performance Theory’,
meanings imply a horizon of meaning, and not the limitless play that he
in Philip Auslander, takes différance to imply.15
From Acting to Auslander is able to cite only one example approaching his idea of the
Performance: Essays in
Modernism and ‘post-Derridean’: David Garrick’s party-piece, as described by Diderot, in
Postmodernism which he runs through ‘a gamut of facial expressions associated with
(London: Routledge,
1997), pp. 28–38. I particular emotions’. This is apparently significant because it ‘was not
grounded in any meaning; it was a gratuitous demonstration of pure
Downloaded By: [HEAL-Link Consortium] At: 06:53 20 May 2010

will henceforth refer to

each version as ‘Just
Be Your Self’,
signification’.16 I am unable to distinguish the basis of this separation
followed by the between ‘meaning’ and ‘signification’: how can one signify without any
appropriate date. meaning? The performance’s context was what made it a party-piece,
clearly referencing a usual context in a production as its ‘grounding’.
12. Auslander, ‘Just Be
Your Self’ (1995), Returning to Auslander’s point relating acting to language, would it be
p. 59 and (1997), possible to ‘reverse the current’ and imagine such a situation, of ‘post-
p. 29. Derridean’ utterance, in philosophy? According to these criteria, it would
be no language.
13. Others have been
significantly less Derrida’s definition of différance implies instances of practice, such
affirmative in their as the utterance of words and sentences. The problem arises when
approaches.
Constantinidis states Auslander assigns a value representing différance to one particular
that he aims to expose instance, rather than tracing its relationship to processes of production.
‘the ideas of several This marks a significant practical issue, which also arose in archi-
‘‘sacred cows’’ on the
landscape of Western tectural discourse in the 1980s with the question of whether
theatre’, as though deconstruction could ‘exist’ in objects.17 I would suggest that decon-
deconstruction
provided a meta- struction’s productivity depends instead on ‘invention’: on creating
perspective from ethical and strategic processes which can result in various forms of
which to realise such
an objective. See
embodiment or incorporation, rather than attempting to construct an
Constantinidis, empirical result according to quasi-transcendental criteria. The
Theatre under problem with this latter gesture is evident in Auslander’s position
Deconstruction?, p. xv.
that deconstruction is ‘the perception of differance’ [sic]18 as an
14. Writing ‘under apparently ‘pure’ phenomenon. If we were to follow his example and
erasure’ is the practice insist on deferring all conceptual limits, there would be no possibility
of using terms whilst
simultaneously
of any coherent discourse whatsoever. Derrida is explicit in noting this
denying their validity, danger: ‘If différance was simply infinite postponement, it would be
often by crossing them nothing’.19
out. For example:
‘self’. Auslander’s speculation on ‘post-Derridean’ acting echoes other
problematic readings, such as Constantinidis’ argument that ‘a decon-
15. See Auslander, ‘Just structor accepts the endless drift of meanings’.20 One of Auslander’s
Be Your Self’ (1995),
p. 67.
concluding points, that ‘for Derrida, the play of difference is all there
is’,21 cannot be satisfactory for anyone hoping to find significant purpose
16. Ibid., p. 67. in deconstructive discourse. Neither is it satisfactory for Auslander
himself, who revises the essay, apparently with this in mind.
 64

17. A persistent concern Amidst numerous small amendments, the statement just cited is
was whether a
particular architectural completely omitted. Deconstruction as ‘the perception of differance’ is
aesthetic could be altered to ‘[f]undamentally, deconstruction is the analysis of the play of
termed
‘deconstructive’ or différance within existing discourses and the implications of that analysis
‘deconstructivist’, or for the meanings imputed to those discourses’.22 Auslander appears to
whether
deconstruction’s
move towards a more hopeful relation between deconstruction and
‘application’ was the practically meaningful in his revision, but the absolute play of
contextual, and must differences still serves as the criterion by which to label Brecht’s theatre
be judged according
to its effect on process. ‘teleological’.23 Although analysis of Garrick’s stunt is also changed,
accounting for the stage context of its elements, the ‘horizon’ of
18. Auslander, ‘Just Be meaning is still considered obstructive throughout the conclusion.
Your Self’, (1995),
p. 67.
Despite various alterations, Auslander ultimately sends mixed signals
regarding practicality.
19. Derrida, ‘Hospitality, Other performance theorists remain thoroughly unconvinced as to the
Justice and pragmatic benefits of engaging with Derrida. Johannes Birringer argues
Responsibility’, p. 77.
that ‘the text [becomes] nothing but a ‘‘performance’’ of itself’,24 and
Sue-Ellen Case and Jeanie Forte argue that ‘in the closed system of
Downloaded By: [HEAL-Link Consortium] At: 06:53 20 May 2010

20. Constantinidis,
Theatre under deconstruction the only possible reference is to the dominant ideology it
Deconstruction?, p. 25. deconstructs. In effect, it reproduces things as they are . . .’25 Although I
cannot provide a detailed critique of these notions of unlimited textual
21. Auslander, ‘Just Be
Your Self’ (1995), play and ‘closed system’ here, I have attempted to show that performance
p. 66. theory has maintained a partial view, failing to consider practical aspects
of deconstruction elaborated elsewhere. As Dan Rebellato and Nick
22. Auslander, ‘Just Be
Your Self’ (1997),
Ridout have argued in these pages, the ‘Derrida that we have yet to
p. 38. seriously encounter is the Derrida of the ‘‘juridico-political turn’’’.26 It
would be useful, in future, for performance theorists to consider not only
23. Ibid., p. 38. this ‘Derrida’, but the architectural, legal, political and educational
discourses around deconstruction, which provide further perspectives on
24. Johannes Birringer,
Theatre, Theory, practice. The ethics and politics that Derrida proposes are still to be
Postmodernism questioned, but we must reckon with such developments in judging
(Bloomington and
Indianapolis: Indiana
practical utility.
University Press, Auslander’s final speculations are ultimately symptomatic of the wider
1991), p. 88. perception in performance theory: that deconstruction is incompatible
with any metaphysical language or categories, and incapable of
25. Sue-Ellen Case and
Jeanie K. Forte, ‘From producing meaningful practical vocabularies. These are significant areas
Formalism to of concern for my investigation,27 especially since Grotowski presents a
Feminism’, Theater,
16:2 (May 1985), 62–
particular metaphysical challenge. We will address these issues as we
65 (p. 64). return to our original encounter.

26. Dan Rebellato and

Nick Ridout, ‘Jacques
Derrida 1930–2004’, INITIAL EXCHANGES
Contemporary Theatre
Review, 15:1
(February 2005),
One could be forgiven for assuming, given the readings of deconstruc-
183–186 (p. 185). tion just reviewed, that an encounter between Derrida and Grotowski
would be a largely oppositional affair. Their relationship has usually been
27. As the philosopher defined according to that between Derrida and Artaud, which has the
David Wood argues,
for Derrida ‘[n]o advantage of several primary references. Copeland views Artaud as the
words are forbidden, if ‘apostle of pure, unmediated presence’, contrasting him with Derrida,
ever they were’. David
Wood, The Step Back.
who ‘complicate[s] the distinction between presence and absence’28 – he
aligns Grotowski within the first category. Auslander’s analysis of
 65

Ethics and Politics Grotowski likewise derives from the existing relationship between
after Deconstruction
(Albany: SUNY Press, Derrida and Artaud outlined in Derrida’s discussion of the corps sans
2005), p. 140. organes. Thus, Auslander concludes that Grotowski ‘proposes the actor’s
body as an absolute presence which banishes difference, but does not
28. Copeland, ‘The
Presence of take into account the action of difference within the body’.29
Mediation’, pp. 29 However, can it truly be said that Grotowski ‘does not take into
and 32, respectively. account’ the organisation and articulation of the body? Surely this
depends on examining Grotowski’s work at a purely metaphysical level,
29. Auslander, ‘Just Be
Your Self’ (1995), focusing on language used in his public statements rather than the
p. 66 and (1997), references and practices employed in the rehearsal room, which were
p. 36.
grounded in physical articulation and pragmatics.30 What makes
30. Related to this point,
Grotowski such an interesting proposition for deconstruction is that
Grotowski writes that, his metaphysics are indissociable from a significant body of practice.31
for him, Artaud’s Central to maintaining the presence/difference opposition is ‘textuality’,
writings ‘have little
methodological which returns us to Attisani’s initial proposal. Derridean ‘text’ has often
meaning because they been viewed as a theoretical gesture: if ‘there is nothing outside the
are not the product of
text’,32 then what of experience, perception and the body’s ‘presence’?
Downloaded By: [HEAL-Link Consortium] At: 06:53 20 May 2010

long-term practical
investigations’. Jerzy Derrida intends ‘text’ to designate a particularly intricate tracing of
Grotowski, Towards a
Poor Theatre (London:
‘context’, and a certain structural ‘undecidability’,33 rather than a
Methuen, 1969; repr. theoretical bias. Text in this sense is a ‘micrological’ field demanding
1991), p. 24. close attention to the details of decision-making and embodiment, as
well as language.34 At the heart of this articulation is an ethical
31. As Grotowski
comments, ‘the commitment to reactivate ‘undecidability’: to constantly interrogate the
productions do not validity of particular decisions, relations or courses of action. Perhaps
spring from a priori surprisingly, this often occurs through attention to material features of
aesthetic postulates;
rather, as Sartre has experience and embodiment, as in Derrida’s treatment of speech and
said: ‘‘Each technique writing. We have already seen with différance that Derrida insists on
leads to metaphysics’’.
[. . .] I realized that the certain structural functions of language as a network, against the classical
production led to view that dissociates concepts from our means of expression – effectively
awareness rather than
being the product of
‘disembodying’ them. It is worth considering the parallels between this
awareness’. Ibid., traditional formulation and dualistic accounts of embodiment, and the
p. 18. consequent possibility of extending Derrida’s critique to the separation
of mind and body.35
32. Jacques Derrida, Of
Grammatology, Across a number of Derrida’s texts, deconstruction would appear to
corrected edn, trans. imply materiality with every mental process, sensation of immediacy or
Gayatri Chakravorty
Spivak (Baltimore and
abstraction, be it through language or the body. Whilst Derrida himself
London: The Johns leaves this somewhat underdeveloped, there would seem to be some
Hopkins University potential here for a more concrete relation to performance. Drew Leder
Press, 1997), p. 158.
notes the convergence of this work with his own, and that of other
33. Derrida insists on the ‘philosophers of the lived body’, but suggests that ultimately ‘Derrida’s
term ‘undecidability’, primary focus on textuality represents a new, though interestingly new
since this conveys both
an emphasis on
form of intellectualism’.36 Elsewhere, Jack Reynolds concludes that the
competing body represents a significant ‘blind-spot’ in Derrida’s philosophy, asking:
possibilities, and that a ‘[is it] something that is antithetical to deconstruction, or has Derrida
decision is required.
Often used just never pursued the question in a sustained manner?’37 Although I
alternatives, such as have argued that deconstruction should be investigated in practical
‘indeterminacy’, fulfil
a similar role, but
terms, it remains uncertain whether Derrida’s theories can genuinely
crucially, without this incorporate corporeal concerns: the relevance of notions such as ‘text’
relationship to choice and ‘undecidability’ for embodied practices has yet to be explored in
and action.
detail. It seems to me that it would be interesting to develop this area,
 66

34. Derrida tells us that combining Attisani and Filipowicz’s concerns, and to consider Grotows-
‘[t]here is no action, ki’s metaphysics and practice within the textual frame. In the remaining
even in the classical
sense of the word, no section, I will therefore begin to examine some potential consequences of
political or ethical thinking through textuality for Grotowski and embodied experience for
action which could
simply be dissociated Derrida.
from, or opposed to,
discourse’. See
Derrida, ‘Hospitality,
Justice and ETHICS AND WRITING
Responsibility’,
pp. 65–66.
Language speaks. Man speaks in that he responds to language. [. . .] What
35. Philosopher Jack is important is learning to live in the speaking of language. To do so we need
Reynolds investigates to examine constantly whether and to what extent we are capable of what
this issue in some
detail, with one
genuinely belongs to responding . . .38 (Martin Heidegger)
chapter of his book on
Derrida and Merleau- [W]e are directed to an ongoing process or practice, the character or
Ponty subtitled
‘Speech-Writing, but quality of which is itself the achievement. The achievement, then, is not a
Why Not Mind- terminus ad quem, not a point in time, but a different way of relating to
Downloaded By: [HEAL-Link Consortium] At: 06:53 20 May 2010

Body?’ See Reynolds,

Merleau-Ponty and
time . . .39 (David Wood)
Derrida –
Intertwining Both of the above quotations suggest important points of exchange
Embodiment and
Alterity (Athens, between Derrida and Grotowski, related to the potential role of action
Ohio: Ohio University and experience within Derridean ‘text’. From this beginning, we will
Press, 2004), pp. 26–
54. trace a movement of interweaving, taking us between Derrida and
Grotowski’s respective conceptions of ethics and practice, in order to
36. Drew Leder, The develop the principal direction of our encounter and identify areas for
Absent Body (Chicago future study.
and London: The
University of Chicago Examining Heidegger’s text, David Wood isolates issues of ‘response,
Press, 1990), p. 194, dependence, and essential relationality’,40 drawing attention to the role
n. 70.
of language in providing a form to which a person can respond, on which
37. Reynolds, Merleau-
s/he depends, and through which s/he can relate to her/himself. This
Ponty and Derrida, clearly connects to Derrida’s conception of the subject as incomplete,
p. 34. dependent, and not simply acting upon the ‘passive world’.41 The
relevance of this area to our encounter consists in the perspective that it
38. Martin Heidegger,
Poetry, Language, provides on the ‘ethical’, and like Grotowski, whose debt to Martin
Thought, trans. Albert Buber has been acknowledged, Derrida draws on Jewish dialogical
Hofstadter (New
York: Harper & Row,
philosophy in order to orientate his ethics.42 Common threads here are
1971; repr. Perennial the emphasis on the infinite, the ‘passive’ dimension within the subject
Classics, 2001), and its relations, and a certain openness and patience with experience.
p. 207, cited in David
Wood, ‘The Wood describes this openness as ‘return[ing] to the finite – but always
Experience of the get[ting] the infinite out of it. The infinite is nothing but a certain kind
Ethical’, in
Questioning Ethics, of consideration brought to bear on action and thought’.43
pp. 105–119 (p. 105). One can see this notion in Derrida’s descriptions of ‘the Other’, radical
Emphasis in Wood’s singularity, the decision as an incalculable leap, and in Grotowski’s
version.
via negativa and insistence on ceaseless investigation. The constant
39. Wood, The Step Back, reactivation of ‘otherness’ within the framework of finite structures
p. 7. (such as ‘text’ or action-scores) is an essential gesture here, rooted in a
kind of secularisation of religious approaches. Further research on
40. Wood, ‘The
Experience of the
both thinkers is necessary to fully articulate this area, particularly
Ethical’, p. 106. from the perspective of practice. However, we can take some initial
steps here.
 67

41. Ibid., p. 108. Rather than focus on a narrow critique of presence, I contend that the
most fertile ground for developing Derrida’s relationship to performance
42. Derrida’s engagement is in this attention to experience. Both he and Grotowski refer to habitual
with this area occurs
largely through his aspects of perception, behaviour and decision-making; the crucial point
dialogue with the work at which they arrive is the question of how to act, in the general sense,
of Emmanuel Levinas.
given this habituality. And their responses, in surprisingly similar ways,
43. Wood, ‘The
arrive through a continuous relationship of dependence and reflexivity
Experience of the within forms of ‘text’.
Ethical’, p. 115. Ethical formulations such as Derrida’s unlimited responsibility or
‘infinite close reading’44 are not intended as processes of deliberation
44. Derrida, ‘Hospitality,
Justice and which are antithetical to action, but rather as ‘certain kind[s] of
Responsibility’, p. 67. consideration brought to bear on action and thought’. Despite their
apparent impracticality, they aim to maintain an essential relation to
45. For Derrida, this is practice through the attitude of the subject. Since I am inclined towards
indicated by enigmatic a certain equilibrium in my thoughts and actions, it is a continuous
phrases such as
‘anticipating the responsibility to dislocate the stabilities on which I depend if I am to
unanticipatable’, and be responsible (one might say ‘response-able’) to the singular demands
Downloaded By: [HEAL-Link Consortium] At: 06:53 20 May 2010

‘to surprise . . . the very

subjectivity of the of each situation in which I am required to act. Otherwise, according
subject’. For to Derrida, I apply a programme or system, I submit to my habi-
Grotowski, by
pragmatic phrases such
tuality and do not ‘decide’ in the strictest sense. It is in this ‘strategic’
as ‘[k]nowledge is a sense of reactivation and decision that deconstruction retains possi-
matter of doing’, and bilities for practice, although the extent to which this continuous
finding a ‘non-habitual
possibility’. These demand can be pragmatically articulated requires much further
citations are taken investigation.
from, respectively, a
presentation by Marian
There is an important sense in which Grotowski shares this attitude
Hobson on ‘Derrida’s towards reactivation, and certain destabilising aspects of his practices may
Legacy’ at the Tate be useful in future for studying the practicality of Derrida’s demand.
Modern, London, 2
February 2005; Some element of transformation or self-interruption is integral to both of
Jacques Derrida, The their discourses and practices – crudely speaking, Derrida marks this with
Politics of Friendship,
trans. George Collins a theoretical break, Grotowski with the development of somatic forms of
(London and New knowledge and experience.45 There is also a clear relationship between
York: Verso, 1997), the idea of responding to language and the relation to action-scores
p. 68; Jerzy Grotowski,
‘Performer’, in The in the various phases of Grotowski’s work. Thomas Richards has
Grotowski Sourcebook, described the practice at the Workcenter as a ‘way of writing’, and
pp. 376–380 (p. 376);
Jerzy Grotowski, recalled that Grotowski often referred to accompanying ‘traces’, likening
‘Theatre of Sources’, in the sustained process of developing a score to leaving footprints in the
The Grotowski
Sourcebook, pp. 252–
sand on a beach.46 In a well-known interview, Ryszard Ciéslak compared
270 (p. 254). his performance score in The Constant Prince to a ‘glass inside which a
candle is burning’, observing that his ‘inner life’ (the flame) varied each
46. Thomas Richards, time the score was performed.47 As with language, this provides a form
from his presentations
at an ‘intervention’ of towards which the actor/doer is capable of an unlimited number of
the Workcenter of Jerzy relations, and upon which s/he is dependent.
Grotowski and Thomas
Richards, University of
In addition to this ‘objective’ view of score and the ‘architecture’ of
Kent, 7 and 6 January the body, we should add a further consideration, which does not simply
2005, respectively. It parallel a theoretical consideration of ‘text’. As Reynolds argues,
would be interesting,
in future, to explore something like Derridean undecidability also occurs in an embodied
the parallels between situation through the ambiguous nature of the ‘body-subject’, ‘which,
Grotowski’s notion of
trace and Derrida’s use
being an amalgam of subject and object, ensures that it is always
of it as a central term in ambiguous whether a decision, or a perception, can be traced back to the
his work. subject or to the world’.48 This is an area largely unthematised by
 68

47. Cited in Ferdinando Derrida, but which is essential for relating deconstruction to embodied
Taviani, ‘In Memory practices.
of Ryszard Cieslak’, in
The Grotowski The body as subject/object adds the crucial dimension of embodied
Sourcebook, pp. 189– experience to considerations of the body and its actions as ‘text’. Given
204 (p. 203).
the chiasmic nature of this subject/object relationship, I contend that
48. Reynolds, Merleau- Grotowski promotes various features of the ‘body as object’ in order to
Ponty and Derrida, counter the actor/doer’s tendency to recede these features in habitual
p. 90. His formulation behaviour. Correspondence with the score, partners and environment are
owes much to
Merleau-Ponty’s all characteristics of this dispossession, which I emphasise here as ‘ex-
descriptions of the perience’, an outward movement from self-knowledge. By insisting on
chiasmic intertwining
of subject and object the development of a specific, structured situation to which the actor/
in embodied doer must respond, Grotowski sets a significant challenge for the body’s
experience, and to his
concept of a ‘body-
habituality. As Reynolds asserts, ‘to maintain an equilibrium within an
subject’. environment that is changing, the body must change’.49
For Grotowski, mastery of technique, in the sense of a ‘predetermined
49. Ibid., p. 92, my set of skills’50 corresponding to an acting method, was very different
emphasis.
from mastery of a score, which always incorporated some substantial
Downloaded By: [HEAL-Link Consortium] At: 06:53 20 May 2010

50. Grotowski, Towards a element of dislocation, or non-mastery. The development of a score

Poor Theatre, p. 16. includes a disruptive function, based on objective changes in movement
patterns and the deliberate disorientation of the body’s coping
51. David Wood writes of mechanisms.51 However, there is also a significant recuperative function,
‘reintroducing which I would relate to the formation of Grotowski’s metaphysics. Even
difficulty’, which
seems appropriate for though the actors/doers must consistently prevent their training and
Grotowski’s ethos. scores from becoming habitual, at various ‘gathering points’52 the action
Wood, The Step Back,
p. 8. is assimilated in a way that deliberately re-produces a certain equilibrium.
This stabilisation accounts for some key features of the work: the
52. These might include apparent ‘freedom from the time-lapse between inner impulse and outer
the performances of
the Teatr
reaction’53 in the Teatr Laboratorium and the Workcenter’s ‘inner
Laboratorium, or the action’, for example. In his references to ‘Presence’,54 ‘verticality’55 and
opuses of the ‘pure impulse’,56 Grotowski clearly emphasises the recuperative function,
Workcenter, for
example. and I would argue that such terms accentuate the tendency towards the
‘assumption of unity’ to which Filipowicz referred. I would also argue
53. Grotowski, Towards that they refer to a metaphysics that is, paradoxically, in and of the body –
a Poor Theatre, p. 16. i.e. it performs a critical function with regard to the actor/doer’s
perceptual and practical experience of the work. In Derrida’s terms, it
54. Grotowski states:
‘Awareness means the fulfils a ‘proximity value’.57 Lest this phrase seem clinical or reductive, it is
consciousness which is worth paying attention to the weight that Derrida accords such
not linked to
language . . . but to recuperative desire in his own, academic, practice:
Presence’. Jerzy
Grotowski, ‘From the I speak of the dream of an idiomatic writing, and I call it Necessity;
Theatre Company to
Art as Vehicle’, in this dream is forever destined to disappointment; this unity remains
Thomas Richards, At inaccessible; [but] this ‘dream’ institutes speech, writing, the voice, its
Work with Grotowski
on Physical Actions timbre. There cannot not be this dream, this dreamed-of desire of a purely
(London and New idiomatic voice that would be . . . indivisible. [. . .] [T]o speak of dream is
York: Routledge,
1995), pp. 115–135
not to speak of an accidental surplus; it is the essence of the thing, this
(p. 125), emphasis in ‘dream’.58
the original.
For Derrida, it is the inaccessibility of the ‘indivisible’ that enables him
55. Ibid., p. 121.
to enter into an ongoing investigative process. Contrary to widespread
assumption, such a relation has a definite role within any ‘deconstructive’
 69

56. Grotowski, Towards a practice. Whilst their philosophical positions appear largely incompatible,
Poor Theatre, p. 18. the structure of continuous dislocation interrupted by the imperative to
act that Derrida elaborates in his later work bears some comparison
57. Jacques Derrida, On
Touching – Jean-Luc with Grotowski’s ‘phases of organicity, of crisis, of organicity, etc’.59
Nancy, trans. Derrida even seems to account for some kind of assimilation of
Christine Irizarry
(Stanford: Stanford deconstructive process along these lines with his rather cryptic reference
University Press, to ‘post-deconstructive subjectivity’.60 Although it requires much further
2005), p. 124. investigation – theoretically and practically – and places noticeably less
emphasis on the reconstructive aspect, this is one of the closest hints that
58. Derrida, Points:
Interviews, 1974– Derrida provides regarding the possibility of something like a literal,
1994, p. 136. enacted deconstruction. This is fertile territory within the framework of
our encounter, but I must leave these issues open at this stage.
59. Jerzy Grotowski, ‘Tu
es le fils de quelqu’un’,
I have not sought to erase the significant differences between Derrida
in The Grotowski and Grotowski here, merely to extend aspects of Attisani and Filipowicz’s
Sourcebook, pp. 294– suggestions to create the conditions for a more detailed encounter. I
305 (p. 303).
have set these suggestions within an ‘ethical’ framework in order to
emphasise possibilities over and above a conventionally theoretical
Downloaded By: [HEAL-Link Consortium] At: 06:53 20 May 2010

60. See Simon Critchley,

Ethics-Politics- ‘deconstruction’ of Grotowski’s metaphysics in isolation from his
Subjectivity (London:
Verso, 1999), pp. 70–
practice. Exploration of the body as a site for deconstruction has so far
73, for a been limited across all disciplines, and performance studies holds
contextualisation of this many potential advantages for the development of this notion thanks
idea. The phrase is
particularly strange, to its particular capacity for reflecting on the training and resistances
since Derrida tells us: of the body. This area demands significant examination if we are to take
‘Deconstruction . . . is
something which is full account of the potential relations between deconstruction and
constantly at performance.
work . . . For me there is Regarding our particular encounter, I would argue that the essential
no ‘after’
deconstruction . . . no direction for its continued development lies in investigating the space
end, no beginning, and between the subject and ‘text’ (be it language, action, the architecture
no after’. Derrida,
‘Hospitality, Justice and of the body), and the ethical dimension of thought and practice that
Responsibility’, p. 65. maintains this opening. Derrida’s extensive articulation of this space
might enable us to re-affirm that ‘several voices’61 are present in
61. Jacques Derrida, Grotowski’s practice, and by extension, his metaphysics – there is no
‘Post-scriptum:
Aporias, Ways and ‘trailblazing’ in Osinski’s sense of the word. The integration of detailed
Voices’, trans. John P. reflections on practice is crucial here, especially given the absence of such
Leavey Jr, in Harold
Coward and Toby accounts in deconstructive discourse. This would involve tracing all the
Foshay (eds), Derrida elements of hesitation, passivity, self-perception and body-image in
and Negative Theology
(Albany: SUNY Press,
performance, the grafting and practical use of memories, and so on,
1992), pp. 283–323 which permit a process of ‘self-correspondence’ through structure. In
(p. 283). deconstructive terms, this relationship is conditional on the impossibility
of reducing it to a ‘one’, a unity, or of resolving its integral distance.
62. Reynolds,
Merleau-Ponty and Whilst tracing Grotowski’s ‘voices’ is a significant task, it may permit us
Derrida, p. 4. to interrogate ‘assumptions of unity’, by focusing on his legacy and
metaphysics ‘in terms of the body’s practical capacity to act, rather
than . . . any essential trait’.62 As Jean-Luc Nancy writes, ‘a corpus is
63. Cited, and translated needed, that is, a catalogue instead of a logos’.63
from the French, in
Derrida, On Touching,
p. 225. Originally
published in Jean-Luc
Nancy, Corpus (Paris:
Métailié, 1992), p. 47.