Call for Papers, Performance Paradigm 14 (2018)


Performance, Politics and Non-Participation

Co-editors: Caroline Wake (UNSW, Sydney) and Emma Willis (University of Auckland)

I would prefer not to. —Bartleby, the Scrivener (1853)

Like Bartleby, the legal clerk who famously decides that he would prefer not to, this issue of Performance Paradigm—an open-access, peer-reviewed journal now in its 14th year—investigates the politics and performance of non-participation. The figure of Bartleby appears everywhere in political theory and philosophy: in Gilles Deleuze’s “Bartleby, ou la formule” (1989); in Giorgio Agamben’s companion piece (1993; published in English 1999); in Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri’s Empire (2000); and in Slavoj Žižek’s The Parallax View (2010). In performance, his spirit manifests in Noor Afshan Mirza and Brad Butler’s project Museum of Non-Participation (from 2007). In performance scholarship, he recently appeared in Daniel Sack’s After Live: Possibility, Potentiality and the Future of Performance (2015). Perhaps we hear him in phrases such as “don’t do it on my account” and catchphrases such as “computer says no”. We might even see him, his slogan printed on a bag or a t-shirt. What are we to make of the fact that more than 160 years after Bartleby first appeared, both pizza ads and productivity coaches proclaim: “No is the new yes” (Huffington Post 2012; Kellaway 2017; Schwartz 2012)? And what is the difference between the “no” and the “non” when it comes to participation? One can choose not to participate (refuse) or one may be excluded from participation, which is altogether different. Is to refuse important in and of itself or should it build towards action; is it, in fact, more a type of action—a striking against—than non-participation?

Participation and performance have been well theorised by Jen Harvie (2013), Josephine Machon (2013), and Adam Alston (2016), among others. This journal issue extends that work by examining participation’s silent siblings: withdrawals, refusals, boycotts, strikes, and even the occasional sulk in the corner. So many participatory performances rely on a mode of compulsory conviviality that eventually becomes coercive. In Helen Iball’s memorable phrase, spectators generally want to “give good audience” so that the artist’s work may “work” (Heddon, Iball and Zerihan 2012: 124). Except when they don’t. Sometimes audiences don’t feel like swallowing the strawberry (Heddon, Iball and Zerihan 124) or tipping the bucket icy water over the performer (Cairns 366). Or, having done so, they feel remorse not only at their actions but at doing the artist’s bidding so easily (Cairns 366). On other occasions, audiences do want to participate but find themselves excluded because an artist has not factored in different regimes of the senses and their associated accessibility needs. On still other occasions, artists and audiences have conscientious objections—to structures, to sponsors, to subject matter—in which case they might boycott the event (Warsza 2017). In these instances, the artist never arrives at the scene of the performance and this becomes, in turn, the artwork.

The irony of inviting you to participate in this issue of Performance Paradigm is not lost on us. Nevertheless, we seek papers on any of the following topics listed below. We also welcome other provocations, suggestions and replies:

  • Non-participation versus refusal and the question of volition
  • Suspension, inaction, non-production, inoperability
  • Withdrawals, boycotts, strikes, and strike-breaking
  • Voting and abstaining
  • Interactivity, unhappy compliance, and cheery refusals
  • Diversity, access, and “differential inclusion” (Mezzadra and Neilson 2013)
  • Uninviting aesthetics (to rewrite White 2013)
  • The operations of consent in theatre and performance (see LaFrance 2013)
  • Permissions, waivers, and disclaimers
  • Curfews, bans, and censorship
  • “I can’t work under these conditions!”
  • Humour as refusal
  • On “slow scholarship” (Mountz et al 2015) and other academic subversions of the participatory imperative

Please send proposals of approximately 300 words to Caroline Wake ( and Emma Willis ( by Friday 19 January 2018. Full articles will be due on 31 May 2018 for publication in December 2018.


Works Cited

Agamben, Giorgio, and Gilles Deleuze. Bartleby: La formula della crellzione (Macerata: Quodlibet, 1993).

Alston, Adam. Beyond Immersive Theatre: Aesthetics, Politics and Productive Participation. (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2016)

Cairns, Jon. “Ambivalent Intimacies: Performance and Domestic Photography in the Work of Adrian Howells.: Contemporary Theatre Review 22.3 (2012): 355–71.

Hardt, Michael, and Antonio Negri. Empire (Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 2000)

Harvie, Jen. Fair Play: Art, Performance, and Neoliberalism (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2013)

Heddon, Deirdre, Helen Iball, and Rachel Zerihan. ‘Come Closer: Confessions of Intimate Spectators in One to One Performance.’ Contemporary Theatre Review 22.1 (2012): 120–33.

LaFrance, Mary. “The Disappearing Fourth Wall: Law, Ethics, and Experiential Theatre.” Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment and Technology Law 15.3 (2013): 507–82.

“‘No is the New Yes’ Domino’s Pizza Ad Offends Some With Apparent Rape Innuendo.” Huffington Post 12 July 2012:

Kellaway, Lucy. “Why Most Successful People Just Say No.” Financial Times 11 June 2017:

Machon, Josephine. Immersive Theatres: Intimacy and Immediacy in Contemporary Performance (Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2013)

Mezzadra, Sandro, and Brett Neilson. Border as Method, or, the Multiplication of Labor (Durham: Duke University Press, 2013)

Mirza, Noor Afshan, and Brad Butler. Museum of Non-Participation

Mountz, Alison, Anne Bonds, Becky Mansfield, Jenna Llloyd, Jennifer Hyndman, Margaret Walton-Roberts, Ranu Basu, Risa Whitson, Roberta Hawkins, Trina Hamilton, and Winifred Curran. “For Slow Scholarship: Feminist Politics of Resistance through Collective Action in the Neoliberal University.” ACME: An International E-Journal for Critical Geographies 14.4. (2015): 1235–259.

Sack, Daniel. After Live: Possibility, Potentiality and the Future of Performance (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2015)

Schwartz, Tony. “‘No’ Is the New ‘Yes’: Four Practices to Reprioritize Your Life.” Harvard Business Review 17 January 2012:

Warsza, Joanna, ed. I Can’t Work Like This: A Reader on Recent Boycotts in Contemporary Art (Sternberg Press, 2017)

White, Gareth. Audience Participation in Theatre: Aesthetics of the Invitation (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2013)

Posted: 2017-11-30 More...

Call for Papers, Performance Paradigm 13 (2017)


Performance, Choreography and the Gallery

Edited by Erin Brannigan (UNSW Sydney), Hannah Mathews (Monash University Museum of Art), and Caroline Wake (UNSW Sydney)

This issue of Performance Paradigm takes the 2016 Biennale of Sydney as a starting point for a broader discussion about the relations between performance, choreography and the gallery. Of course, the appearance of performance in the gallery and in the GLAM (galleries, libraries, archives and museums) sector more broadly is not new. Indeed, the Biennale’s 2016 artistic director Stephanie Rosenthal and two of her ‘curatorial attachés’, Adrian Heathfield and André Lepecki, have been working at this intersection for years. So too have scholars such as Claire Bishop (2012; 2014), Shannon Jackson (2011), and Susan Bennett (2009).

Posted: 2017-01-30 More...

Call for Papers, Performance Paradigm 12 (2016)


Performance, Technology, Intimacy

Edited by Caroline Wake (UNSW, Sydney) and Anna Scheer (University of New England)

Taking its cue from the title of Caryl Churchill’s recent play, this issue investigates the performance, politics and dialectics of “love and information”.

In his review of the play, Michael Billington observed that, “we live in a world where information bombardment is in danger of leading to atrophy of memory, erosion of privacy and decay of feeling.” Yet his criticisms are couched in binaries that the play itself, and contemporary performance more broadly, challenges, unsettles, disrupts and even refuses. In an age of big data, small screens, social media and algorithmic match-making, can we really separate liking and “liking”? Even if we could, are we comfortable with the implicit hierarchies of co-presence here? If technology has become, for better or worse, an “architect of our intimacies” how does performance respond to, reproduce or resist both those architectures and those intimacies?

Posted: 2015-11-17 More...

Call For Papers, Performance Paradigm 11 (2015)


Staging Real People: On the Arts and Effects of Non-Professional Theatre Performers

Guest edited by Ulrike Garde and Meg Mumford

Performance practice since the 1990s has been characterised by an increased interest in the phenomenon of theatre without professional performers. Such performers are selected for a variety of reasons, including: their life experiences, their status as specialists in spheres of expertise other than that of art performance, and their connection to particular social categories such as economic class, field of work, ethnicity, age, and (dis)ability. In the work of companies such as Rimini Protokoll these performers are referred to as both ‘protagonists’ and ‘experts of the everyday’. In her recent study of participatory art, Claire Bishop gives the label ‘delegated performance’ to the tendency to hire such people to perform on behalf of the artist (2012: 219). The currently prominent modes of staging real people* recall, modify or challenge a diverse range of traditions and genres, from realist, documentary, and Dadaist experiments to popular entertainment forms including gladiator fights, freak shows, and most prominently today, reality television.

Posted: 2015-01-29 More...
1 - 4 of 4 Items