Show description

The conclusion provides a summary of the key arguments made across the preceding seven chapters. In scholarly terms the focus on improvisation draws attention to the significance of the performance of sovereignty, a fleeting, dynamic and contested set of practices that are always incomplete, evolving, and constrained by available resources. In so doing, the analysis highlights a set of policy implications, relating to the effectiveness of state performances and their ability to foster democratic and shared understandings of political practice.

But this definition draws attention to more than spontaneity; it reflects the concept of improvisation as a multifaceted practice. In addition to the performance component of improvisation (‘the physical expression of an idea’), Frost and Yarrow illustrate two further elements: spontaneity and response to the immediate context. These two interlinked aspects of improvisation illuminate a more complex subjectivity than simply ‘acting on the spur of the moment’. indd 32 7/11/2012 11:38:47 PM THE IMPROVISED STATE 33 impulses that reflect individual judgements of appropriate practice.

Thinking of improvisation as a form of resourcefulness seems to work in opposition to spontaneity, invoking a notion of calculated practice that deviates from an expression of free will. But such a tension presupposes that there exists an authentic form of spontaneity that exists beyond material, ethical or political considerations. This tension has been explored by drama theorists such as Keith Johnstone (1981), who attempts to cultivate a form of ‘learnt spontaneity’ in his students. He argues that in order to improvise you must shed the layer of education and enculturation that prevents the expression of ‘true’ spontaneity.