1 FREEING THE NATURAL VOICE?: PERFORMANCE, GENDER, SOCIETY A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts in Theatre and Film Studies in the University of Canterbury by Diana M. F. Looser University of Canterbury 2005 ........ 2 Table of Contents Abstract ................................................................................................ 3 Chapter One. Introduction .................................................................... 4 Chapter Two. Pinning Down the Natural Voice: Kristin Linklater' s Vocal Pedagogy ................................................... 22 Chapter Three. Sorceress and Hysteric: Voice and the Performance Art of Karen Finley ............................... 55 Chapter Four. Freeing the Cyborg Voice: Voice and the Performance Art of Laurie Anderson ......................... 86 Chapter Five. Conclusion ................................................................. 111 Bibliography ................................................................................................... 115 3 Abstract This thesis is about the search for the "natural voice." It draws together elements from the disciplines of theatre, philosophy, linguistics, voice training, art history, performance studies and feminist scholarship, as well as my own practical experience as an actor and teacher of voice, to address issues of vocal agency in current criticism and theatrical performance, and to interrogate a dominant strand of voice pedagogy as well as the use of voice in contemporary American performance art. I consider first the highly influential voice training methods of Kristin Linklater, an Anglo-American director, actor and voice coach, whose textbook, Freeing the Natural Voice (1976), first advanced the notion of a "natural voice." Linklater promotes the natural voice as a more authentic form of communication, a more accurate expression of our inner being that has been hidden, inhibited and distorted by harmful and repressive societal influences; thus, she claims that through freeing the voice, one "free[s] the person" (2). I interrogate Linklater's concept of the natural voice and suggest that her informing influences, particular style of training, and the way in which she conceives of the relationship between mind and body (which, in dualist epistemologies, become related to distinctions between male and female, and speech and voice) problematise her claims to the "natural." I argue that Linklater's "natural voice" is in fact a political and ideological construct that restricts the kinds of performances it can produce, particularly feminist interpretations of canonical texts. So, what is a "natural voice"? One means of discerning this is to examine the use of the "unnatural" voice in performance. Subsequently, I focus on the work of two prominent performance artists, Karen Finley and Laurie Anderson. I read Finley's performance of her provocative piece, We Keep Our Victims Ready (1990) from the perspective of ecriture feminine, paying particular attention to her correspondence with the tropes of the "sorceress" and the "hysteric" advanced by Catherine Clement and Helime Cixous. Anderson's technologically mediated voice is analysed in a range of her post-1979 "electronic cabaret" works in terms of Donna Haraway's theory of the "cyborg," a human/machine amalgam and product of techno scientific culture that redraws traditional conceptual and material categories. Of both artists, I ask: Why do they use these highly constructed, unnatural voices? What effects do these voices have? What do they tell us about the "natural voice"? In the analyses of Finley's and Anderson's work I also pursue two related lines of inquiry instigated by the analysis of Linklater: how each artist addresses the mindlbody problem; and how this affects her ability to produce work that extends the boundaries of feminist performance and to deploy voices that have agency, social and political force and challenge the status quo. This focus on the nature and use of the voice in relation to performance, gender and society stands in contrast to the wealth of material on visuality, visual culture and the body in contemporary performance criticism. It also defies poststructural theories that deny the voice siguificance and strip agency from the speaking subject. In undertaking this project I am concerned to show that the voice is worthy of attention and is a valid subject of study in theatre and performance studies. 4 Chapter One Introduction This thesis is about the search for the natural voice. As a teacher of voice and speech for the theatre, I have worked with students and actors in a variety of institutional and professional settings. One of the chief aims of my teaching - as it was in my own training - is to enable students to discover or free their "natural voices." The rationale of this approach is that everyone has his or her own natural voice, that the natural voice provides liberation from the detrimental effects of contemporary society on our psychology and physiology, and, consequently, that finding one's natural voice is better not only for communication as an actor, but for life as an individual. During the ten years that I have been teaching, promoting and applying the "natural voice" method, I have come to reflect critically on its practice, claims and techniques. In particular, I have wondered: What, precisely, is this voice that I am cultivating? Is it really "natural"? What, indeed, is a "natural voice"? The most prominent definition of the "natural voice," which formed the basis of my own training and will be the focus of my analysis, is that expounded by Kristin Linklater in her highly influential publication, Freeing the Natural Voice (1976). Linklater defines the natural voice as "a voice in direct contact with the emotional impulse, shaped by the intellect, but not inhibited by it" (1). Her method is based on the assumptions that everyone has a voice capable of expressing whatever mood or feelings he or she desires, but that socially-induced habitual psychological and physical tensions prevent the voice from being released effectively, and lead to "distorted" communication. Linklater argues that our socialisation inhibits our ability to recognise the extent to which we have been affected by that process; therefore, she writes that, "I must underline [ ... ] that in our perception of our own voices there is a vital difference to be observed between what is 'natural' and what is 'familiar'" (1). Linklater's aim ,is to liberate this natural voice through the long-term practice of a structured series of exercises that encourage communication from the whole body, not only the head, so that "the person is heard, not the person's voice," along with the belief that "to free the voice is to free the person" (2). Upon initial examination, Linklater's explanation appears relatively straightforward and unproblematic: throw off society's restraints and embrace a renewed sense of self. However, upon reflection, her thesis raises several questions, 5 such as; What does "natural" mean in this context, and what are its implications? Does "natural" really equal "neutral," as Linklater seems to claim? If the voice is natural, why are so many exercises necessary to develop and maintain it? If "to free the voice is to free the person," what are the implications? If one acquires a natural voice, does one also become a "natural person"? What is a natural person? Does Linklater's privileging of nature, the emotions and the body indicate an ideological underpinning? Could this be politically problematic? What are the implications of this highly prescriptive, structured approach to voice training? Might it in fact restrict the range of moods and expressions capable of being produced? Consequently, the more deeply we delve into Linklater's conception of the natural voice, the more untidy, complicated and unsatisfYing the concept becomes. The inconclusiveness of Linklater's concept and methods motivates a search for the "natural voice." One approach to answering the question of what the natural voice is, is to examine the "unnatural" voice - that is, the obviously constructed and manipulated voice - as a concept in performance. Essentially, if the voice is denaturalised for various political purposes, might it not in fact be the case that Linklater's "natural" voice is also constructed, politicised and informed by certain ideologies? Furthermore, might an analysis of the unnatural voice lead toward a more convincing definition of a natural voice? Accordingly, I investigate the work of two contemporary feminist American performance artists, Karen Finley and Laurie Anderson. Finley and Anderson were chosen because each uses "unnatural" voices in prominent ways, but their means and modes are antithetical. Karen Finley began her career in the late 1970s. She adopts a confrontational and controversial performance persona to expose and condemn what she sees as the violent and sexist culture of the contemporary United States. Finley concentrates specifically upon the ways in which women are debased and abused by a capitalist, patriarchal society. Finley speaks in a collection of voices to articulate cultural resistance, adop~ing the personae of an assortment of society's victims, and linking their personal, autobiographical confessions to the political and the collective. She says ihat, "I stir people to be responsible for what's going on in their personal lives, in their one-to-one relationships, interweaving