laut&LAUTER*

*an ethnographic Performance

Text by Sina Knecht (University of Münster)

Photo by Ethnografic Seminar Group, University of Münster

This essay traces my experience as a student-participant in the performative piece laut&LAUTER, staged as part of a seminar at the University of Münster. The topics of gender, sexism, shame, but also emotions and empowerment were part of our performance. 

Introduction

As part of a research-based seminar, we were invited to explore methods such as autoethnography and performative ethnography, - not only as theoretical tools, but as ways of engaging with ourselves and the world. Along the way, questions of emotions and self-reflection in the field became central, eventually leading us to develop a performance based on our own autoethnographic experiences. 

The seminar’s aim was to open a space for experimenting with a method of public anthropology as something lived and practiced. In this essay, I would like to reflect on this somewhat unusual seminar design:the possibilities and challenges offered by this type of knowledge transfer. My focus here will be on the performance itself and on what it made possible - not only for us performers, but the experiences of the audience will also have their say. 

When performance becomes research

What happens when scientific reflection meets physical expression, when personal experience becomes a collective artistic process? As part of our seminar, we created laut&LAUTER*, a performance that aimed not only to make visible, but also to make tangible what so often remains unspoken. To prepare for the performance, we engaged in a series of exercises to get a feeling for the physical performance and to cultivate the courage to show ourselves vulnerable on stage. We explored a range of performative forms in science, from silent scenes accompanied only by music or soundscapes, to comic drawings and protest performances.

We began with warm-up exercises for our bodies and voices – funny, and at first, slightly bizarre. We acted out short scenes, presented still images using our bodies and worked extensively with music.

To prepare for writing our own autoethnographies, we read several examples and drew on them for inspiration and insights.

One text in particular helped clarify the foundations of the method. As Ellis et al. (2011) describe:

Autoethnography is an approach to research and writing that seeks to describe and systematically analyze personal experience in order to understand cultural experience (…) Thus, as a method, autoethnography is both process and product. 

Autoethnographic writing often focuses on so-called “epiphanies” - remembered key moments that have left a lasting impact on one's life, or phases of existential crises that demand an deep engagement with one's own lived experience. What matters is not only to tell the story, but also to take an analytical look at one's own experience using theoretical and methodological tools.

To accomplish this might require comparing and contrasting personal experience against existing research, interviewing cultural members and/or examining relevant cultural artifacts (Ellis et al., 2011, Chapter 2).

Furthermore, autoethnography calls for the conscious inclusion of subjectivity, emotionality, and one's own agency within the research process. Reflecting on one's own social position - and the privileges associated with it - is central. Recognizing and critically questioning these aspects is considered a fundamental component of this method (Adams et al. 2015).

Autoethnographic writing almost always involves mentioning other people, and the potential impacts of writing about them must be carefully considered. This might include sharing the text with those involved, giving them space to respond, being attentive to their feelings and, if necessary, changing identifying characteristics in consultation to protect their privacy and ensure safety.

Autoethnography should aim to contribute to new knowledge by valuing the personal, the lived and the challenges encountered along the way, while it calls for a relationally responsible approach to research (Adams et al. 2015).

Since emotions are inextricably linked to both autoethnographic writing and our performance, another focus of the seminar was the role of emotions in ethnographic research. The work of Thomas Studolka et al. (2019) was especially influential in this regard.

Between research and expression

The seminar combined theory and practice in a special way. At its core was research-based writing and performance, grounded in the group's own subjective perspectives. The goal was not only to develop scientific findings, but also to carry them into public space through performance - as a contribution to public anthropology. This performative approach was thus understood as a form of knowledge transfer: lively, accessible, tangible. 

Public anthropology is a conscious movement to make anthropological knowledge more accessible and relevant to a broader public. It draws on a variety of presentation methods - including performative approaches - to translate complex findings into accessible formats. In this context, performance becomes more than a form of presentation:

By expanding the possibilities of representation—using theater, art, or multi-media, for example—scientists invite a more fully embodied response from their audiences; performances can more effectively motivate interest and action, and they can enhance dialogues on important societal issues (Gergen and Gergen 2011, Chapter 2).

Performance ethnography has become a pedagogically exciting methodological form because it can emotionally engage audiences in topics they would normally avoid (Cavnagh 2013, 287).

These insights echoed our own experience. After each of us had written an autoethnography about a moving, deeply emotional and personally meaningful situation from their own life, we started to discuss as a group which themes we wanted to include in our performance. In the end, we decided that we wanted to bring the themes and thoughts to the stage that could be found in many of our autoethnographies. Finding themes was quite easy, as we found that many of our stories circled around similar experiences. Topics such as gender, sexism, shame, but also anger, vulnerability and empowerment quickly came into focus. Our initial question: What moves us personally - and how can we translate that into a collective ethnographic performance? 

It was important to us that everyone in the group felt heard and included in the decision-making process. However, this also meant making compromises and showing respect for each other´s boundaries. Our collaboration was characterized by openness, but also by uncertainty and at times, fear of potentially triggering situations. It took courage to share personal stories and show vulnerability in front of the group. We often spoke about our own insecurities and the fear of overwhelming the audience with emotionally intense performing topics. These challenges arise quite naturally when working with personal experiences and strong emotions, so we were grateful for the strong sense of group cohesion, as well as the safety provided by our teachers.

The performance itself evolved through conversations, improvisations and a variety of physical exercises. The decisions as to which exercises would find their way into our performance as scenes were made together and put together after a few exhausting and enriching days of rehearsals. We finally found our title for the performance after a open, collaborative discussion - choosing a name that not only linguistically resonates but also visually reflects the theme of our performance. The title, laut&LAUTER*, also expressed the tension we were dealing with: the quiet within the loud and the inaudible that longs to make itself heard.

laut&LAUTER*

After a trigger warning, our performance began. It lasted around 20 minutes and was followed by a 30-minute Q&A session with the audience. We chose to perform on the university’s stage without an elaborate set in order to focus all our attention on the situations and emotions we were addressing – without overwhelming the audience with visual excess. 

It was a collective creation, a group performance in which each of the participants made up an important piece of the performance puzzle. Not everyone appeared in every scene, as we placed particular emphasis on ensuring that each person felt comfortable both with their presence on stage and with the situation being portrayed at all times.

The performance unfolded in six scenes, each shaped by a different performance method. Among other things, a situation from one of the autoethnographies was presented, whereby the situation described was partly depicted by re-enacting it.

However, soundscapes, recorded audio texts and critically connoted sentences on a screen were also used in the performance. The lighting compositions are fully tailored to each sequence, added to the emotional texture of the performance. We concluded our performance with a scene that we described as an empowerment scene, in which we completed the emotionally stirring performance with an empowering, shared message. 

When developing the performance, we asked ourselves the question: What do we want to achieve for the audience with the performance? It was clear to us that we didn't just want to portray stories, we wanted the audience to experience it. What does shame feel like in the body? How does it feel to be harassed at your workplace? But also: What do community, understanding and empowerment feel like?

Photo by Ethnografic Seminar Group, University of Münster

Reactions: Confusion and Connection

After the performance, I spoke with several audience members about their thoughts and insights in relation to our performance. The feedback from the audience revealed an intense engagement with what they had witnessed - highlighting both the emotional and intellectual impact of the performance.

Some were especially impressed by the openness and courage it took to share a personal story on the topic of sexualized violence – an act that was perceived as deeply touching. One scene in particular, in which all performers lay on the floor while loud, dissonant shouts rang out, was described several times as highly emotional. Precisely because it was not immediately clear what this scene was supposed to symbolize, it encouraged reflection. In retrospect, it was often understood as an expression of inner turmoil and the feeling of powerlessness that can follow a crossing of boundaries.

The atmosphere throughout the performance was consistently described as serious, tense and increasingly intense. Rather gloomy at the beginning, the mood developed through oppressive moments to a hopeful conclusion. The removal of dark clothing and the visualization of colorful elements towards the end were perceived as particularly powerful and interpreted as a gesture of self-empowerment and new beginnings.

In terms of content, the way we addressed gender and sexual violence was evaluated in a differentiated manner. Several viewers positively emphasized that gender roles were not  portrayed in stereotypical ways - for example, we deliberately played with gender attributions in various scenes. The discussion of sexual violence was also seen as successful, as it was not told in a clichéd way, but showed that transgressions of boundaries can be diverse and subtle - regardless of gender and without the need for physical violence. This invited not only reflections on socially defined gender norms, but also on personal experiences and their own patterns of behavior. Some audience members recognized themselves in the stories portrayed - especially mirrored in the emotions on stage such as shame, feelings of guilt or the desire to suppress the situation.

The artistic composition - a combination of movement, language and light - was broadly perceived as successful and engaging. Movements often supported what was being said, and in particular the alternation between spoken text and silent scenes created moments of tension and attention. Despite occasional confusion - especially in extended or more abstract scenes - the performance as a whole was described as accessible and impactful. The room for discussion after the performance was perceived as particularly sensitive and valuable, especially given the emotional weight of the subject matter. Emotional feedback but also critical questions arose in the subsequent discussions. This reception became a kind of second act in themselves: a performative act seen through the eyes of the audience. 

Within the framework of public anthropology, the audience holds an active and diverse role. They are not merely passive recipients of information, but are encouraged to become emotionally involved, to question, contradict and critically reflect. Performative approaches, especially those involvin direct interaction, encourage the audience to engage with the material and often also with their own biography. Audience engagement and reaction, then, become crucial to the impact and transformative potential of the research. Through their involvement, viewers contribute to constituting the meaning of the work, positioning them as active participants of the research process: 

The social context within which the autoethnographic performance is presented adds a further critical layer to the doing and witnessing of the performance (Spry 2001, 718).

Insights 

Perhaps the most profound insight for me was that performative research not only renders theory visible but also gives emotions a space – something that is rarely provided for in traditional academic formats. In the course of the process, it became increasingly clear to us how closely emotion, body and knowledge are linked. Engaging with our own autoethnographies initially meant confronting deeply personal experiences. Sharing these within the group required courage and trust - and at the same time, it was precisely this vulnerability that became the basis for collective strength. The group became a safe space in which every voice was heard and every story respected. This experience showed us that performative work can not only be a means of expression, but also a powerful tool for empowerment and collective healing.

It became clear that performance does not always need to be fully understood to be effective. Rather, the openness and interpretability of our scenes was a great strength: audience members were invited to connect emotionally, allow associations and develop their own meanings. This ambiguity created resonance - a sense of sharing that went beyond words.

Many of us were afraid of judgment, of misunderstanding or of crossing boundaries - both for ourselves and for the audience. These insecurities accompanied us throughout the entire process. Looking back, it was precisely this confrontation that became part of the performative ethnography: reflecting on our roles, our boundaries and our responsibility towards the topics and the audience.

Conclusion

To me the performance laut&LAUTER* was more than just a creative realization in the context of a seminar - it was a multi-layered research process that wove together theoretical knowledge, personal experience and artistic expression. 

Performative ethnography revealed itself as a methodology with the potential to expand academic work and reach more people through easier access. The autoethnographic approach opened up new perspectives for us that go beyond traditional written formats. Trust, openness and courage were central elements to our process - as were the experience of community and the collaborative negotiation of sensitive content.

laut&LAUTER* remains, for me a formative example of how research can be different: visible, tangible, accessible - and deeply human.

Photo by Ethnografic Seminar Group, University of Münster

References

Adams, Tony E., Stacy Holman Jones, Carolyn Ellis (2015): Autoethnography: Understanding Qualitative Research, Oxford University Press.

Cavanagh, Sheila L. (2013): Affect, Performance, and Ethnographic Methods in Queer Bathroom Monologues, Vol. 33, No. 4, pp. 286-307, Text and Performance Quarterly.

Ellis, Carolyn, Tony E. Adams, Arthur P. Bochner (2011): Autoethnography: An Overview, Volume 12, No. 1, Art. 10, Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung.

Gergen, Mary M. & Kenneth J. Gergen (2011): Performative Social Science and Psychology, Volume 12, No. 1, Art. 11.

Spry, Tami (2001): Performing Autoethnography:An Embodied Methodological Praxis, Qualitative Inquiry. 

Studolka, Thomas, Samia Dinkelaker, Ferdiansyah Thajib (2019): Affective Dimensions of Fieldwork and Ethnography, Springer.