지원사업
학술연구/단체지원/교육 등 연구자 활동을 지속하도록 DBpia가 지원하고 있어요.
커뮤니티
연구자들이 자신의 연구와 전문성을 널리 알리고, 새로운 협력의 기회를 만들 수 있는 네트워킹 공간이에요.
논문 기본 정보
- 자료유형
- 학술저널
- 저자정보
- 발행연도
- 2010.4
- 수록면
- 209 - 233 (25page)
이용수
초록· 키워드
오류제보하기
Will it be legitimate to discuss the nature of theater on the one hand and the nature of law on the other hand? This essay proposes that David Henry Hwang’s M. Butterfly offers a positive answer to the question. The play dramatizes the ways in which theater and law converge into each other on account of their performative nature. One must “perform” in court, just as he or she cannot avoid performance in theater. Not surprisingly, the question of performance appears as the main object of study in this essay, which is divided into two parts along the way. The first part focuses on the discussion of what it means to perform, especially in reference to act three scene two in which the clear distinction between theater and court blurs. The audience cannot determine whether Gallimard and Song “perform” in a sense of acting on a stage or they “perform” in a sense of carrying out their truthful legal duty in court. It is here that the traditional dichotomy between the true court and the false theater, as best shown in the case of Plato, begins to collapse. One cannot distinguish the legal performance from the dramatic performance at a fundamental level. Both performances relate to action or deed that one ought to play. The legal proceedings, in other words, are not so much the truth as the legal facts determined by performative action.
The second part of the essay begins with a question that the first part entails: What does one perform either on a stage or in court? What, in other words, puts a person into motion in the first place? The answer lies in the fact that this play is framed by Gallimard’s story. All he does is to tell his story in front of the audience. Simply put, that is what the play is all about. For this reason, this part of the essay addresses the nature of telling a story in the analysis of Gallimard’s transformation caused by words power, and suggests that he, as well as every other character, performs with (or in) words in order to fulfill his will, which cannot be either finally or completely identified under any circumstances. The audience is only able to read his will as he or she intends. However, this is not necessarily bad news in that one’s given right to write the law is restored. Set free from ontological, as well as epistemological, pressure under which the process of signification is fixed enough to be calculable, one is now able to activate meanings behind any given performative acts. How do I want to change the world? This question becomes the condition of one’s performative acts in a world where there is no absolute correspondence between the signifier and the signified.
The second part of the essay begins with a question that the first part entails: What does one perform either on a stage or in court? What, in other words, puts a person into motion in the first place? The answer lies in the fact that this play is framed by Gallimard’s story. All he does is to tell his story in front of the audience. Simply put, that is what the play is all about. For this reason, this part of the essay addresses the nature of telling a story in the analysis of Gallimard’s transformation caused by words power, and suggests that he, as well as every other character, performs with (or in) words in order to fulfill his will, which cannot be either finally or completely identified under any circumstances. The audience is only able to read his will as he or she intends. However, this is not necessarily bad news in that one’s given right to write the law is restored. Set free from ontological, as well as epistemological, pressure under which the process of signification is fixed enough to be calculable, one is now able to activate meanings behind any given performative acts. How do I want to change the world? This question becomes the condition of one’s performative acts in a world where there is no absolute correspondence between the signifier and the signified.
목차
등록된 정보가 없습니다.
참고문헌 (19)
참고문헌 신청
함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문
논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!
-
1960년대 ‘연극 대중화’ 운동과 ‘대중’ 담론
인문언어
2009 .01
-
연극으로서의 텍스트—ꡔ난 아니야ꡕ
영어영문학21
2006 .01
-
Korean Theater, Past and Present
Korea Journal
1980 .03
-
Reorientation of the English Translation of Korean Theater
번역학연구
2006 .03
-
한국어 연극 은유
담화와인지
2007 .08
-
한국 근대 아동극 장르의 용어와 개념 고찰
아동청소년문학연구
2009 .12
-
현대 연극에 나타난 언어의 위기 및 그 한계
인문언어
2006 .01
-
근대기의 한국연극과 한국 근대극운동의 특징
한국문학과 예술
2009 .09
-
성, 사랑, 폭력의 노래 : M.Butterfly
현대영미드라마
2015 .12
-
M. Butterfly 한국 공연(2012)과 무대화(staging)에 대한 비평적 분석
현대영미드라마
2012 .08
-
일제 강점기 항구의 상인 계층과 극장 건립의 관계 연구 : 해항도시 함흥의 사례를 중심으로
해항도시문화교섭학
2017 .04
-
데이빗 헨리 황의 『엠. 나비』에 나타난 남성성의 부재
영어영문학연구
2009 .01
-
윤백남의 연극개량론 연구
어문학
2012 .06
-
낭만주의 시대 극장과 불법 드라마
19세기 영어권 문학
2013 .08
-
포스트드라마 연극의 미학적 기초 : 니체와 아르토
외국문학연구
2011 .02
-
연극과 정치 : 탈(脫)정치시대의 연극
열린정신 인문학연구
2001 .02
-
크롬웰의 공화정을 전후한 극장건축구조 변화에 따른 극적 담론과 공연방식의 차이 : 『안토니와 클레오파트라』와 『사랑을 위하여』 사례연구
새한영어영문학
2006 .02
이 논문의 저자 정보
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
M. Butterfly 한국 공연(2012)과 무대화(staging)에 대한 비평적 분석
김지혜
현대영미드라마
2012
.08
성, 사랑, 폭력의 노래 : M.Butterfly
윤소영
현대영미드라마
2015
.12
아시아계 미국 무대 위의 인종과 젠더 : 아시아계 미국인의 새로운 얼굴 찾기
정문영
현대영미드라마
2017
.04
대중문화 공연에 재현되는 양극화된 젠더 디스플레이와 몸 이미지의 성애화 방식
이수안
한국여성학
2014
.12
뮤지컬〈여신님이 보고 계셔〉의 서사 구조와 뮤지컬 넘버의 극적 기능
신사빈
,
이우창
한국콘텐츠학회논문지
2014
.03
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2010-842-002943305