 |
| The Cenotaph, Whitehall. Photo by Matt Brown |
Today is the 11th of November – Armistice Day. When many people around the world remember that active fighting ceased, in Europe, on this day in 1918, at 11am (creating the easy to remember, and date-format friendly, time and date of 11am 11/11) local time. Many say the armistice was signed at 11am, but this is incorrect; it was signed earlier that day, after some negotiation, and communicated initially around 9am in Paris; the 11am time was that specified in the armistice for cessation of hostilities, and the troops had notice of it some time before that – and in many cases, carried on fighting quite close up to the minute specified, especially artillery units (who didn’t want to have to shift their ammo back home) and those who were in sight of a strategic target, whose officers were thinking ahead to the possibility that the armistice might fail. However, by 11am people had pretty much stopped fighting (in Europe), and the armistice did not fail – the war being formally ended with the Treaty of Versailles in June 1919.
I clarify ‘in Europe’ because, communication not being globally instantaneous in 1918, it took a while for the news to reach those fighting in Africa. About two weeks later, they got news, and the local commanders had to make their own arrangements for an armistice ceremony and cessation of hostilities in Northern Rhodesia (modern Zambia).
But this isn’t a history blog. It’s a Quaker blog. You might think, from the text above and a little knowledge of Quakers, that I’m about to get into Quaker pacifism, the wastefulness of the so-called Great War (now commonly known as the First World War), or, perhaps, how our public observances of Remembrance have taken on characteristics of glorification of war and the military. All of those would be valid things to post here, but that’s not what I’m up to right now. No, as those of you who’ve paid attention to the title of this post will have gathered, I want to take this opportunity to talk about performativity.
There are two main public observances of Remembrance in Britain (by which I mean things that most people do; there are also public ceremonies, which I do not consider observances in this same sense, as far fewer people participate in them. These are the wearing of the poppy, about which I have written previously, and the holding of two minutes’ silence at 11am on both Armistice Day itself, and on Remembrance Sunday, the second Sunday in November (and thus generally the Sunday nearest to Armistice Day itself). The object of this silence is ostensibly that we should use it to remember those lost in war, or the war itself. Some specifically say it is to remember those who gave their lives in service – combatant or non-combatant, though often the emphasis is on combatants – in war, while others say it is to remember all those whose lives have been lost in war, and those of a more pacifist bent may encourage you to think of the general waste and pointlessness of most wars, both in loss of life and damage to property, and in the general harm it does to societies. Like the wearing of the poppy, however, there are a great many people who keep this silence simply because they are expected to do so, because everyone else is doing so, and whose thoughts are likely to be on anything but the harms of war.
That is to say, for many people the silence is performative. It is done in order that it be seen to be done, that you are showing outward compliance with social norms and expectations. I note that purist theoreticians in some disciplines will disagree with this use of the term performative, especially in linguistics and some branches of philosophy, but this is a use found in several branches of the social sciences. A traditional Quaker term with similar but not identical meaning might be that the silence is an empty form. These are things done because of a social expectation that they be done, or because of a belief in their inherent spiritual value, and usually referred to church rituals, but sometimes to social rituals; criticisms of hat honour – the removing of one’s had to show respect to those above you in the social hierarchy, later extended to social equals – included both the Quaker belief in equality and the fact that it had become an empty form, at least in how it was used between equals.
Performative expressions inherently devalue the act and what it represents. People being silent or wearing a poppy because it is expected of them removes the significance of such acts by those who find them truly significant. This impact is less as regards the inward significance of the act to the individual; they are still expressing that sentiment, they are still using the silence in a significant way. However, it can entirely eliminate the social significance of the act, instead giving social significance to the failure to perform as expected, and can reduce the inward significance to individuals because they are aware of that diminution of social significance.
This is not limited to Remembrance observances. Far from it. In societies where public expression of religion is so pervasive as to be normative, there is considerable pressure for those who do not sincerely believe in all of those acts, or even that faith, to perform as if they do – often leading to them doing so in a highly visible way, greater than the norm for the rest of the population. It can also be seen, according to some theories (theories with which I somewhat agree) in terms of performative heterosexuality by some closeted homosexuals, especially closeted gay men who publicly behave in a hyper-stereotypical ‘straight’ way, typifying stereotypical masculinity as well as apparent heterosexuality.
In another topical example, there is huge practical and rhetorical significance to the phenomenon of American sportspeople ‘taking the knee’ during the (rather performative in its own right) playing of the national anthem before the start of a match or other event. It is making a statement, and it has come with consequences – but also achieves a goal of drawing attention to that to which it is intended to draw attention (as well as creating outrage – also probably often performative – about this supposed ‘disrespect’). This has been followed, however, by sportspeople around the world, especially for international events, having a sometimes constructed opportunity to take the knee. In some cases, this is a period specifically intended and advertised as being a time to think about, and make silent statement about, racial or other inequalities, with athletes expected to take part and with the option (sometimes expectation) of taking the knee. This clearly has a significant performative aspect, though it does also potentially have the genuine positive impact of showing solidarity with the American athletes who have suffered persecution for making that statement in their own country. The effective compulsion to engage, however, raises questions about the sincerity of those taking part.
Now, I’m not about to say that people in general shouldn’t engage in any performative activity. The negative consequences of failing to do so are potentially significant, can lead to social rejection or even negatively impact on employment – or in some countries, persecution and prosecution. What I will say is that conscientious individuals, and especially Quakers, should not do so without thinking hard about it. Where an action is potentially performative, but may be significant, try to make it significant. If you participate in a ritual silence, use the silence for the purpose for which it is intended, rather than thinking about your shopping list or evaluating the physical attractiveness of people nearby. If you wear a poppy, choose one or more that best express your personal reasons for wearing one, and consider all the meanings that others might take from the poppy or poppies, so the intended impact of wearing it – the visibility, the statement – is definite, and is what you intend. The same principles apply to many possible performative acts, and it would be a waste of my time and yours to list many here, as I think the general point should be clear.
Why do I say that we should do things in this way? Well, partly it stems from Quaker values, those behind the original railing against empty forms, the idea of Truth and Integrity. It is not good to do things simply because they are expected, though there can be practical reasons for doing so; if all those who wish to resist an oppressive government do so openly, there will be no-one left to resist in quiet, practical ways, as they will likely all be imprisoned or killed, and the same idea can apply where the consequences are less dire.
For instance, I dress in smart ‘business dress’ – suit, shirt and tie – only when I am actively required to do so, not when it is simply a social expectation. My ‘smart dress’ when it is my choice generally consists of slightly smarter trousers than my usual cargo trousers, and a fairly casual Oxford shirt (though I do appreciate the additional pockets provided by a smart jacket). Indeed, long before I heard of Quakers, I wrote and jointly gave a speech at an inter-school public speaking competition about truth, about casually lying or misrepresenting ourselves, in which the final point was made by my team-mate and myself removing our smart clothing (on the top half) to reveal t-shirts that better expressed ourselves, stating that this was more truthful than dressing up in smart clothes for the competition. The audience loved it; the judges not so much. It was a competition organised and sponsored by the local Rotary Club – make of that what you will.
However, I am required sometimes to wear business dress for work. I could stand on principle and refuse to do so, to insist that I can still be perceived as professional and respectful in clothes that better represent who I am, and likely I would no longer be doing that work. I consider that I do good by complying with this requirement and taking part in the public service that this work provides, and that the benefit of doing that good, to myself and to others, means that it is more ethical to do so even if I dress performatively.
(As a note, this is a point where this sense of performative actually clashes with its use in other disciplines, whereby it is dressing counter to expectation that is more likely to be performative – as it is an act intended to have an effect beyond that inherent in the act itself. This is why one should be clear about how one uses terms, because they can have very different meanings in different disciplines, communities or contexts.)
Another reason that I would encourage people to think before engaging in performative activities that may have lost their meaning, though. It is not based on Quaker principles, though it is compatible with them. It is relevant to anyone who seeks, in any sense, to improve themselves in a sense that might be called ‘spiritual’, though that is not the only word that might be used. Every act has two sorts of impact – the impact on others, or on the world outside the actor, and in the impact on the actor themselves. By engaging in any ‘empty form’ without significance to you, you deny yourself an opportunity for that inward impact. Indeed, you also deny an opportunity for outward impact, but going into detail about that would simply be repeating much of what is written above. If an act can have significance for you, make it have significance for you, because it is acts of significance that represent one of the major opportunities for personal and/or spiritual growth. It is acts of significance that help us refine how we see ourselves, how we see the world around us, how we see other people, and how we see ourselves fitting into that context of world and people.
Remembrance isn’t the only occasion for such empty, performative forms that have lost much of their meaning, and only have meaning where we make sure of it – rather than just going along with expectation. But it is one, at least here in Britain, and so it makes a good opportunity to think about it, and provoke thought in others. I hope this has been in some way provocative for you, and please share your thoughts on these matters, be it about remembrance specifically or the wider issue of acts performed purely in conformation to social expectation, in the comments below if you feel comfortable doing so.
Did you enjoy this post, or find it interesting, informative or stimulating? Do you want to keep seeing more of these posts? Please consider contributing to my Patreon. More information is available in the post announcing my use of Patreon.
