Playing with purpose: Adventures in performative social science Mary M Gergen and Kenneth J Gergen

Reviewed by: Helen Owton, University of Northampton, UK

The artistic, portentous, playful, and creative appearance of the book gives a very spirited impression of what could be lingering inside. I imagine that these pages have been written and constructed by their own handwriting and anticipate that life will breathe from these exciting pages into my living room. I’m not disappointed as Mary and Kenneth Gergen describe their personal and social journeys into the performative field through the five wonderfully written sections: (I) Toward a performative social science; (II) Literary arts: Playing with potentials; (III) Dramatic arts: Ideas in action; (IV) Visualising ideas: Believing is seeing; (V) Extending experiments: Flying furniture.

Part one vivaciously introduces us to the ‘risks’ associated with performative social science where many academics have sceptical views surrounding this field. Some of the scenarios may resonate with other ‘risky researchers’ who have similar experiences of being subjected to scientific scrutiny accompanied by tactless remarks from those who basically fear the unknown, the uncertain and the unpredictable. Pleasingly, they are not shy of addressing the political implications of their work which reassures us that it’s not just something we are all imagining in different departments across the world and reminds us all of the need to gravitate towards joyful performative and supportive communities frequently. This section is not just about outlining performative studies, but it is also about how relationships developed with key and close friends (Norman Denzin, Carolyn Ellis and Art Bochner) who are creative energies and driving forces in qualitative research. They also acknowledge the performance movement in the UK (Kip Jones, and Zoë Fitzgerald Pool). They argue quite convincingly in this part that performative social science can enrich social science by opening up new spaces of possibilities, new ways of knowing, inspiring professional engagement, expanding and enhancing audience engagement, enriching dialogues between science and society, fostering social change and revitalising society.

Part two focuses on literary arts and how the narrative movement has challenged ‘good scientific’ writing which is abstract, flat and unemotional failing to communicate with anyone outside the discipline. Through duographic writing, ‘crafting a writing by “making real” our relational existence’, in duography ‘the individualist voice gives way to an unidentifiable author who writes about “we”’ (p. 59). Aptly starting in ‘the sixties’ where a social revolutionary cultural and political trend materialised, they situate their stories in amid this era and evocatively describe how their journeys coincided with other movements (e.g. the ‘crisis in social psychology’ p.64). In ‘dog days’ there is a vivid and touching description of Mary’s suffering of cancer and how professional life has to continue with savage onslaught from those threatened by a new movement with the terrain becoming ever more treacherous. They eloquently encapsulate how this new movement must touch a nerve; ‘perhaps the donkey kicks hardest when the thorns are most piercing’ (p.66). Mary’s chapter on Collaging Voices pays homage to her work on Womanstories and Manstories where she asks the reader to consider how ‘patriarchal authority has controlled the narrative forms’ (p.72). By continuously asking explicit questions throughout the chapters the authors endlessly provoke thought in the reader. This is particularly prevalent in the last two chapters of this section where Mary and Kip Jones engage in dialogue on reflecting on performative social science. They express concerns about amateurism and embarrassing performances and ask questions such as ‘where are the “new PSS” researchers coming from?’ where I respond ‘here!’ Then Mary and Ken offer some reflective thoughts on this section where they add that there is no guarantee that performative work means that you will automatically ‘reach’ an audience.

I am met with four striking colourful images as I approach part three on the dramatic arts. In ‘Performing the mind’ Ken continues the notion that ‘there is a close association between a social constructionist view of knowledge and the performative turn’ (p.119). In this chapter, he employs numerous dramatic examples with client and therapist that show rather than tell how difficult it is to separate mind and language and that it is ‘once we agree on how to use language, we can move merrily along’ (p.126). This emphasises his next point that the meaning of what one says depends on the collaborative action (coaction); ‘not on what I say or what you say, but on the relationship between our saying’ (p.131). The next few chapters are from Mary who offers live pieces: performing theory, theatrical power, and the costume in the message. I enjoyed reading these performances and the images helped frame my imagination, but realised how much I would have preferred to have ‘scene’ them performed live. On Mary and Ken’s reflections on this section, they highlight the complex issues of suspending belief when watching academics.

In part four of the book the focus is on visual communication and the collaborative work that Ken has engaged in with various artists. This section is also tied in with constructivist ideas and relationality. There are some engaging and abstract pieces of collaborative artwork which allows the interpreter to engage in the meanings as well as some debates about the powerful form of art. However, I think that debates could also be stirred in some who argue that artwork can speak for itself and by ‘adding’ the text to the visual dimension it implicitly prioritises the written word over verbal and visual, although Ken makes a case for adding the text because he has found that visual images without implicit codes are largely meaningless. It is here where the echoing and meaning of one of the artworks dawns on me. The butterfly in this chapter, which represents the multi-being in terms of the self, ‘I am the common connection of multiple relationships’ (p.179), is the small image at the beginning of each chapter. Suddenly, I see a bigger picture weaved subtly through the book.

In the final part, or more aptly put, the final scene, Gergen and Gergen try to prepare newcomers to the field by saying ‘all the furniture begins to fly’ and it may just be that those wishing to experiment may ‘simply add a new twist to your writing, a new voice, a flirtation with a genre’ (p.191). The following chapters explore sculpting, cartooning, song, multimedia, cybergraphics, haiku, and teaching through fiction. In this section what shines through is their ability to try new things, experiment and not take themselves too seriously. Indeed, the cartooning and the song were particularly humorous. As I read this I immediately miss this community of researchers that emanate the warmth I feel from the book. But Ken and Mary express their hopefulness that there are many outlets to enable the young scholar to publish their work (and thus survive). Their use of language is stimulating, inspiring and is crafted together to poetically articulate their life staged full of scenes of fascination.

What I am left with are questions about are how can we still get the ‘impact’ of performative research without seeing and feeling the performance when academia continues to pressurise and value the textual form? I remember performing a poem at the Psychology of Women’s Section conference (2011) where this debate emerged from the audience because they felt that they wouldn’t get the same impact of the story if they read it on the page. This debate of ‘impact’ continues and scholars, such as Kip Jones, also seem to be hot on the case in the UK.

In a playful and theming gesture, I respond with a Haiku to summarise (but not finalise) my thoughts about the book:

Sincere, sprightly slice

b-r-e-a-t-h-i-n-g l i f e from the crisp leaves

DARE, read, perform, quest-…

ion