Maurice Merleau-Ponty concludes his discussion of the Higher Forms of Behavior: Pavlov's Reflexology and its Postulates (1967:52-128) by submitting two major propositions: first, unlike lower responses which are functions of antecedent conditions unfolding in objective time and space, higher responses do not depend on stimuli, taken materially, but rather on the meaning of the situation (1967:125). Second, behavior consists of relations that are irreducible to their alleged parts-whether these parts are coming from outside or inside. structure of behavior as it presents itself to perceptual experience is neither thing nor consciousness (1967:127). Is it, then, a sign? Ivan Pavlov, of course, looked into perceptual behavior as an extension of his theories on respondent conditioning. In theater studies, however, interdisciplinary research teams such as the late Tinchon/Dietrich team at the Institute for Audience Research at the University of Vienna or the more recent Schoenmakers/Tan team at the Institute for Reception Esthetics at the University of Amsterdam, seek to describe the audiovisual of performance-texts and to explain the emotional/cognitive aspects of spectator response to these (Schoenmakers 1982, 11:146). The findings of such teams hopefully will help theater companies increase the affective quality (impact) that performance-texts have on spectators. Interestingly, Umberto Eco argued persuasively enough that stimuli cannot be regarded as signs (1979:19-20; 241-242). Without first disproving Eco, the above teams proceeded to harness semiotics and psychological esthetics to a common task. This paper aims at refuting Eco's point and at justifying an interdisciplinary approach to theatrical phenomena. Wilfried Passow negotiated a way of lifting the barrier between the two disciplines by pairing three types of theatrical experience (visceral, emotional, and cognitive) to Charles Peirce's three kinds of interpretants (immediate, dynamic, and final). Passow suggested that these
Read full abstract