View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Louisiana State University Louisiana State University LSU Digital Commons LSU Doctoral Dissertations Graduate School 2002 The sound of meaning: theories of voice in twentieth-century thought and performance Andrew McComb Kimbrough Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/gradschool_dissertations Part of the Theatre and Performance Studies Commons Recommended Citation Kimbrough, Andrew McComb, "The ounds of meaning: theories of voice in twentieth-century thought and performance" (2002). LSU Doctoral Dissertations. 533. https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/gradschool_dissertations/533 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at LSU Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in LSU Doctoral Dissertations by an authorized graduate school editor of LSU Digital Commons. For more information, please [email protected]. THE SOUND OF MEANING: THEORIES OF VOICE IN TWENTIETH-CENTURY THOUGHT AND PERFORMANCE A Dissertation Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in The Department of Theatre by Andrew McComb Kimbrough B.A., Wake Forest University, 1984 M.F.A., Carnegie Mellon University, 1997 May 2002 © Copyright 2002 Andrew McComb Kimbrough All rights reserved ii To Liu Zhiguang iii TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT . .v CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION. 1 2 THE VOICE IN PALEOANTHROPOLOGY . 31 3 THE PHENOMENOLOGICAL VOICE. 82 4 THE MUTABLE VOICE IN THE LINGUISTIC TURN. 138 5 THE VOICE IN POSTMODERNITY . 194 6 THE VOICE IN MEDIA AND SECONDARY ORALITY. 241 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS . 286 WORKS CITED. 295 VITA. 315 iv ABSTRACT This dissertation addresses the problem of the denigration of the voice in poststructural theory and contemporary performance criticism. The problem has antecedents in twentieth- century language philosophy. Saussure defines language as a compendium of arbitrary words recognized according to the degrees of phonetic difference between them. Since for Saussure the arbitrary words of language also designate arbitrary concepts, he concludes that the sounds of words cannot be thought constituent of their sense. After Saussure, structuralism dislodges the voice from its privileged position in the phonologic discourses of Western thought. Poststructuralism views meaning as a product of socially constructed language systems, and it argues that neither the voice nor the speaking subject can be afforded linguistic agency. A strain of contemporary theatre criticism, premised upon poststructuralism, interprets the postmodern stage as a site in which the voice, language, and the speaking subject come under critique and suspicion, stripped of agency and communicative efficacy. This dissertation investigates twentieth-century theories of voice, language, and speech in order to define the status of the voice in various disciplines ranging from paleoanthropology, phenomenology, structuralism, speech act theory, theatre semiotics, the philosophies of technology, and media studies. By comparing the status of the voice in other disciplines, this dissertation argues for a recuperation of the voice against the denigration evident in poststructural theory and performance criticism. Relying on Heidegger’s phenomenal view of language, the autonomy of the voice in speech act theory and theatre semiotics, the centrality of vocalized language in human evolution, and the resurgence of orality in electronic media, this dissertation argues that the voice continues to act as an important and primary signifying agent on the postmodern stage, regardless of poststructural arguments to the contrary. v CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION This dissertation examines theories of voice in circulation across multiple disciplines and relates those theories to the contemporary study and practice of performance on live stages and in various technological media. The justification for this study stems from the observation that scholars in theatre and performance--who might be thought to have some investment in the voice-- have been virtually silent on the subject in the past several decades, whereas studies of voice have held the interest of scholars working in such disparate fields as anthropology, paleontology, linguistics, media studies, and the philosophies. Traditionally understood, the voice maintained a secure position in theatre studies first because of the pedagogical concern with rhetoric and elocution, but also because of the close association of the voice with the phono-logocentric cast of Western thought, which granted it a privileged locus of meaning in the signification of truth. But much of the recent interest in the voice in other disciplines springs from the linguistic turn in twentieth- century Western thought, which questions the epistemological nature of language and problematizes the role of speech in interpersonal and cultural contexts. Significantly, Derrida’s critique of the voice as an essential though faulty element in the phonologic tradition serves as a keystone for deconstructive and poststructural theory, which contests the efficacious role of speech and effaces the traditional sense of agency afforded the speaking subject. In light of theoretical developments in the past century, a reevaluation of the stage voice seems long overdue. Yet in the vast majority of contemporary theatre studies, admittedly indebted to deconstruction and poststructuralism, the voice earns nary a mention. Compounding the disappearance of the voice in poststructural theory and criticism, the twentieth century also introduces two further problems for a hearing of the voice, namely 1 technology and the critical regard of postmodernity. The aural technologies of radio, TV, film, and video have proven problematic for two reasons, one being the absence of live performers without electronic mediation, another being the relation of technology with the perceived decay of human society under the capitalist pressures of mass media and the hegemony of the simulacra. Within the hyper-commodified nature of postmodernity, wherein all objectivity has been said to be lost given the unmooring of meaning from any foundational base, the voice has been ranked among all other signifying systems, equally revealed as groundless. Because of the relative and contested nature of discourse in postmodernity and the stultifying effects of technologized media, neither the voice nor the speaking subject can be thought to articulate objective realities and meanings. Yet the voice still functions as a primary signifying agent in contemporary theatre and performance. Theatre studies could be interpreted as practicing a silencing of the voice already staged in poststructural theory. Even a brief review of recent publications illustrates that theatre critics overwhelmingly concentrate on presentations of the human body and interpretations of dramatic text. Given the confrontation of the voice with poststructuralism, technology, and postmodernity, the oversight in theatre criticism raises questions. What does the voice signify in contemporary performance? How does the use of the voice in postmodern performance differ from the use of the voice in the traditional, modernist, and avant-garde theatres of the twentieth century? Does the use of the voice in postmodern performance reflect the critique of the voice in poststructural thought? In their negligence of the voice, do theatre critics conscientiously duplicate the silencing of the voice conducted in deconstructive theory, or does their oversight reflect a symptom of another influence on the discipline? At stake in such questions lies the reevaluation 2 of the critical notion of human vocal and linguistic agency in an age in which agency has fallen under interrogation. Since theatre and performance studies avoid addressing the voice, answers have to be sought elsewhere. In order to begin an investigation of theories of voice for the contemporary stage, this study visits the scholarship already undertaken in various disciplines across the humanities and sciences. Two reasons support the approach. First, much fruitful work has already been accomplished in other disciplines, and instead of ignoring or duplicating the work of others, theatre scholarship would benefit by a review and critique of the research in order to gauge its relevance to theatrical models. Second, recent research on the voice across the disciplines began in conjunction with the turn to language as a first philosophy in the past century, which has had its own momentous impact for theatre study and practice. Far from being unrelated, the critical thinking about the voice in various academic fields directly intersects with the preoccupations of the contemporary stage. In its methodology, therefore, this dissertation addresses the human voice by exploring its position within both the humanities and the sciences, and by comparing theoretical views of the voice with the use of the voice in twentieth-century performance, both live and mediated. By comparing the theoretical regard of the voice with the voice in performance, this study advances three goals. First, it aims to ascertain the degree to which the use-value of the voice corroborates or refutes the linguistic turn in twentieth-century thought, specifically