The wedding may have been a performance (ranging from ritualistic to showy), but the talk about the wedding is performative. Thus, the identity construction takes place at the moment of interviewing, though the couple may have been extremely intentional about how people perceived the couple’s identity during the wedding.
Each performance is a “unique dramatization of the possibilities of the genre” (McDowell, 1981, p. 73).
Performance is the display of intention. In the context of speech act theory, we often say we cannot know people’s intentions and that we operate with speech acts without ever being sure of intentions. Perhaps this is a line dividing performativity with performance, because with performance, there is a self-reflective element at play in which intentions are announced. Of course, we can never know if announced intentions are sincere, but that is another question. The act of announcing intentions is performance, and the language without announcing intentions is performative—less reflective. Of course, the line here is blurry.
Myerhoff, 1992, p. 156—ritual as drama of persuasion (of identity). Also see Fortes (1983). This connects ritual to performance and performativity.
“Performativity is not just a matter of an individual’s wanting to do something by saying something. Verbal as well as other performances come off, acquire their meaning, and do their work, because they draw on discourse histories of similar performances, reiterating elements that have worked similarly in the past”
(Eckert & McConnell-Ginet, 2003, p. 131)
Nietzsche writes in the third essay of On The Genealogy of Morals “[T]here is no ‘being’ behind the doing, effecting, becoming; “the doer” is simply fabricated into the doing—the doing is everything.”
At what point is a good storyteller enhancing the aesthetics of a performance? In other words, when does storytelling cross over from performativity to performance?
Baumann (1986, 2004) and Briggs (1986)- used in a talk on narrative.