Comparative Practices of Masked Performance in East Asian and Western Theatre

Thesis Abstract

This study investigates how masked performance practices in East Asian and Western theatre converge and diverge in form, function, and audience reception, addressing the problem of uneven cross-cultural understanding of mask dramaturgy and its socio-political resonances in contemporary performance. The aim is to articulate a comparative framework that maps historical lineage, performance conventions, and spectatorship across regions, with specific objectives to (1) analyze the symbolic languages of masks in selected repertoires, (2) examine performative technique and audience interpretation through live and recorded performances, and (3) evaluate the influence of globalization, curation, and pedagogy on masked theatre practices. The study tests three hypotheses H1, that mask dramaturgy in East Asian and Western theatre encodes distinct ontologies of identity and vitality that shape reception differently; H2, that training and pedagogy mediate technical fidelity to traditional mask forms, and H3, that contemporary adaptations blend ritual precarity with theatrical familiarity, altering ethical and political readouts for audiences. The research adopts a comparative mixed-methods design, combining qualitative discourse analysis with quantitative audience response data. The population comprises professional masked performances and pedagogy in Japan, China, Korea, and the United Kingdom, with a purposive sample of 24 performances (6 per region) drawn from festival catalogs and repertory archives between 2010 and 2024. The study includes 12 expert interviews with practitioners (mask-makers, directors, and performers) and 200 audience survey responses collected at three live performances and two archival viewings. Data collection instruments consist of a semi-structured interview protocol, field observation checklists, a performance coding scheme for mask typology, and a standardized Likert-scale questionnaire for audience reception. Validity and reliability are enhanced through triangulation across interviews, field notes, and visual analysis, as well as inter-coder reliability checks (Cohen’s kappa > 0.75) for the performance coding scheme. Ethical considerations include informed consent, anonymization of participants, and sensitivity to cultural protocols surrounding mask performances. Analytical procedures integrate thematic analysis for interview data and performance transcripts, coded in NVivo against a framework derived from Merleau-Ponty’s phenomenology of perception and Victor Turner’s liminality, complemented by Bourdieu’s habitus to interpret ritual capital. Quantitative data from audience surveys are analyzed using descriptive statistics and inferential tests, including MANOVA to compare cross-regional differences in perceived authenticity, aesthetic impact, and political resonance, followed by regression analysis to identify predictors of higher engagement. A cross-sectional analytical model examines the interaction between performance form (ritualistic vs. theatricalized), audience familiarity with masked practices, and region on affective and cognitive outcomes. Expected findings include (a) a typology of masks and associated performative conventions that reveals region-specific symbolic grammars—e.g., the virtuosity and silence of East Asian Noh masked figures contrasted with the expressive exaggeration and grotesque deformation in Western masked theatre; (b) evidence that pedagogy and institutional support significantly affect the fidelity and innovation of masked performances; (c) nuanced audience reception patterns indicating higher perceived authenticity in performances with ritual initiations and live mask manipulation, and greater critical engagement with hybrid, post-dramatic masked works in Western contexts; and (d) emergent transregional hybrids that fuse ritual precarity with contemporary staging, creating new ethical and political vantage points for spectators. The study contributes to knowledge by clarifying how mask aesthetics mediate cultural cognition, expanding theoretical understandings of mask performance as intercultural communication, and offering a robust methodological blueprint for cross-cultural performance research that combines phenomenology, symbolic analysis, and empirical audience data. It also informs theatre pedagogy, dramaturgy, and curation practices by identifying factors that sustain traditional mask integrity while enabling adaptive reuse in globalized stages. The principal conclusion posits that masked performance functions as a dynamic interface between tradition and modernity, where the sociopolitical charges of masks are negotiated through performer agency, institutional support, and audience interpretive repertoires. Recommendations include the development of cross-cultural training programs for mask practitioners, inclusive curatorial strategies that foreground ritual lineage alongside contemporary experimentation, and further comparative studies incorporating additional regional mask traditions and multidisciplinary reflections from anthropology and cognitive science.