@article{3aef21039d854561b3d901379c289d98,
title = "How does one study a {"}masterpiece of the oral and intangible heritage of humanity{"}? ethnographic reflections on Kerala's Kūtiyāttam",
abstract = "This article presents issues encountered in ethnographic fieldwork in Kerala, south India, on a tradition of Sanskrit theatre called Kūtiyāttam. Key issues include recent changes in both the audience and performing troupes as Kerala's society has become more egalitarian, and reduced ritual activity by priests. Kūtiyāttam has been transformed from a devotional offering in temples to a cultural performance viewed as an art form. Ethnographic research on this tradition has contributed to international recognition and patronage. In this case, ethnographic fieldwork affects both the researchers and the subjects of their research.",
keywords = "Drama, Ethnography, Globalization, Kerala, Kūtiyāttam",
author = "Sullivan, {Bruce M.}",
note = "Funding Information: While I have never volunteered for the role of authenticity arbiter, I can confess to taking one position of advocacy in relation to Kūṭ{\d }{\d } about which I am not entirely comfortable: at the end of a chapter in my first book on the tradition, I offered the opinion that the tradition “deserves to be known and appreciated” and that I hoped this translation and study would “stimulate interest” in Kūtiyāṭ ṭ aṃ (Sullivan 1995: 27). Interest has been stimulated (whether or not my work had much impact), and now UNESCO, the Government of India, and grant-funding agencies are involved in supporting Kūṭ{\d }{\d } — with the result that those outside the performance tradition are engaged in determining what “the tradition” is and will become. This may be a typical role for patrons, but now the patrons are not just the economic elite of Kerala but bureaucrats in New Delhi. And the money UNESCO is spending in Ker-ala comes from even farther afield, from Japan Funds-in-Trust, a grant from the Government of Japan for cultural preservation activities by UNESCO. My role as an advocate for the Kūṭ{\d }{\d } tradition seems now a minor, supporting role at most—a cameo, perhaps. Funding Information: Proponents of Kūṭ{\d }{\d } are keen to see it (and to represent it to the world) as emblematic of India{\textquoteright}s great culture and a living link to a glorious, classical past. Recognition by UNESCO, and grant support from the Ford Foundation, add to its iconic status. Such international acclaim is often cited by supporters as a great victory, and a hopeful sign for the tradition{\textquoteright}s survival. One even hears rhetoric about how the tradition is unchanged from ancient times and that this demonstrates authenticity. The tradition{\textquoteright}s supporters insist (and scholars have often echoed their view) that performance complies with Bharata{\textquoteright}s Nāṭ a{\'s}āstra guidelines, ignoring the fact that its enactment deviates in various ways that were criticized in the 16th century text Naṭ{\. } , particularly regarding religious rituals and devotional activities (Sullivan 2007 and 1997). Interestingly, in an effort to expand the tradition{\textquoteright}s popularity both in Kerala and internationally, the innovative director and performer G. Venu has chosen to eliminate many of the very features criticized by the Naṭ{\. } and adopt what he regards as a more “classical” style of enactment in a recent revival of Kālidāsa{\textquoteright}s Abhij{\~n}āna{\'s}ākuntala, “The Recognition of {\'S}akuntalā” (DuComb 2007).",
year = "2009",
doi = "10.1163/157006809X416841",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "21",
pages = "78--86",
journal = "Method and Theory in the Study of Religion",
issn = "0943-3058",
publisher = "Brill Academic Publishers",
number = "1",
}