The paper will look at the social, political, and cultural factors associated with performances in the theatres and how much attention is given to the physical setting of the theatres, and the audiences as compared to that given to the performers. The antithesis in this text is the suggestion that there has to be some control over the power structure vested with the performers, or otherwise the running of the society will forever be questionable. On the other hand, the argument and elaboration of the Celtic theory that focuses on modes and forms of theatres form the thesis. The author argues against fighting all authorities and instead gives a proposal for identification of social groups as a way of making life in the society meaningful. From the general outlook and the arguments presented, the text targets the general group that has an interest in the running of the society.
The author uses a pure post-structural theoretical framework assumptions. Those that have been made in this case presuppose that the cultural, social and political causes of the society are interrelated and that the description of the relations, expectations and performers stands out as an assumption. The issue of private and public power is also debated by the author. The template could be considered as a confirmation to the fact that nature binds the society, and thus rumors concerning rituals are never theorized.
Development of the text is unclear since it begins with a definition of performance drawn from other authors and an argument surrounded by a lot of assumptions. Every part of the text seems a conclusion of its own. So many gaps are evident in the text inclusive of the missing theories. The key to this is how much the author overlooks the social system of the society and most importantly, gender as a major discussion on the part of the audience. He also fails to explain whether or not the entire Mayan society was constituted of potential performers and spectators, or whether some training had to be made.
From how he handles the issue of political consciousness in the Mayan society, it can be clearly indicated that the author exclusively uses a complex approach to interpretation. He does not bother to give reasons and forces behind numerous assumptions he makes and uses in his text. He, however, tends to assume that the readers of the text are knowledgeable about the lives and rituals of the Mayan society; at the same time, this may not be the case.
As the text advances, the author seems to have some interest in the rituals and spiritual standing of the Mayan society. However, such a stance is entirely dropped when he recognizes that it could be contradicting to his stand on their political life. The whole text, according to my own understanding, seems to be politically-based. He further contradicts himself when he speaks about political vitality and competition on the Sabbath regarding performances. The paper also focuses on a closed argument and uses a lot of transference. This is evident when he argues that leaders are the most important players in planning but fails to offer alternatives to that.
Displacement is evident in the text. Happenings in the modern society, which are not depicted here, are displaced by what the society used to be. What is more, there is a lot of eroticizing as opposed to assimilation. Status quo is just another argument to which this approach could be applied, and all archaeological research to a great extent, affect the current and the coming generations of the concerned society since such reserach could be used to evaluate societies when they are no longer in existence, just like the Mayan society.