As an undergraduate student in Birmingham in the early 1990s, I spent a lot of time in the stacks in the library where I had discovered, through back issues of TDR for the most part, something called ‘performance studies’. It didn't really figure on our curriculum, but having become duly exposed to Richard Foreman scripts, photographs of Annie Sprinkle shows and various essays on ritual, I wished like hell that it did. It was this that led me to a book, By Means of Performance, edited by Richard Schechner and Willa Appel. One chapter in particular floored me completely. Entitled ‘What Does It Mean to “Become the Character”: Power, Presence and Transcendence in Asian In-Body Disciplines of Practice’, it combined a deep knowledge of the practices it discussed that could only have come from doing them in depth, with a level of philosophical and ethnographic detail that made tangible, material sense of the apparently esoteric premise of its title. The chapter was Phillip's, and his great gift as both teacher and scholar was always that ability to place the relationship between ‘the doer and the thing done’ at the heart of things. This is, of course, a key tenet of the American pragmatist tradition (the phrase is John Dewey's, I believe, although I often heard Phillip make use of it) and I don't think he would object to me aligning him with it.