A few years ago, when I was at my last go (so far…) at “structured” or “conventional” dance, a colleague brought to my attention the book “To Dance is Human: A Theory of Nonverbal Communication”*, by Judith Lynne Hanna, which I then bought. Today I feel particularly like transcribing here a chapter from it entitled “Dance?”, highlighting upfront the following excerpts:
There is obviously a need to define or, using Abraham Kaplan’s phrase, to “specify the meaning of” a behavior before exploring its complexities. For the anthropologist who strives to identify, describe and explain phenomena within a cross-cultural perspective, it is essential to adopt a definition which both indicates the sets of features which are referents for a concept and, also, remains flexible about empirical issues.
Of course, our choice of conceptual apparatus, our working distinctions, need constant refinement, and we must be alert to indications that something may be escaping us because our approach has blind spots. A decade ago I began (as observer, participant, and/or field researcher) to examine dance forms ranging from classical theater ballet to popular dance in the West to Latin American, Caribbean, and African social and ritual forms; later I examined a variety of dance forms from other parts of the world. I wondered if these were common characteristics in the kinds of phenomena different people call dance (or what westerners would generally categorize as dance – as a westerner I am obviously influenced by my culture). Examining dance cross-culturally to formulate hypothesis, to establish the range of variation of dance phenomena and their concepts of culture or social organization, I was forced to develop an overarching analytic definition.
Such a definition should, I thought, transcend the participants’ concepts of dance, which undoubtedly, include some criteria that other groups exclude and debar, some they encompass. Further, the definition should include behavior which the appearance of what is generally considered dance, even though, for the participants concerned, it is not dance because they have no such concept. I have observed or read about a number of groups who seemingly have quite different ways of conceptualizing what I think of as dance.
Many societies have multiple words for different dances without having a single generic term. (…) For the Ubakala of Nigeria, drum accompaniment is a necessary part of dance and, thus, the word denoting dance also denotes a drum and a play. Elsewhere in Africa, for example among the Akan, Efik, Azande, and Kanba, dance involves vocal and instrumental music, including the drum. On the other hand, many African groups, such as the Zulu, Matabele, Shi, Ngoni, Tutkana, and Wanyaturu, do not use drums and some even denigrate users of drums. Among the Tiv of Nigeria, the word dance also encompasses activities we exclude from the performing arts: games and gambling.
The following conceptualization of dance is a researcher’s abstraction (an etic concept) partially generated from analyzing native (emic) definitions. This working definition was reached through empirical observation, a survey of literature relevant to dance, consideration of dance movement elements and the human body (the instrument of dance) in motion, and through adhering to a holistic approach. Holism does not mean an attempt to know everything, but it assumes that dance is essentially meaningful in its sociocultural context. It implies functional relations within a system but does not assume total interrelatedness nor relationships of equal importance.
***
*To which I would just add: indeed, to dance is only human – it doesn’t need to be transformed into “rocket science”!
Ou, para colocar a questao de forma mais amena para certas cabeças duras e incultas em terras onde quem tem meio olho e’ rei e quem tenha lido, decorado ou copiado meia duzia de livros se auto-intitula “doutor cientista” e/ou "especialista", ou ainda quem tenha feito uma “visita oficial” guiada de meia hora, com guarda-costas, a uma das verdadeiras fontes de Cultura (… que Dançam desde que a humanidade existe e cujos conceitos precedem de milenios quaisquer “contemporaneas teorias da dança” - para hoje serem apedrejadas com calhaus abusivos e atrevidos tipo "o povo nao sabe o que e' bom"…), se considera “pesquisador”, “antropologo”, “etnologo”, “pensologo”, ou… “dançologo”: Dançar e’ humano, nao tem que ser transformado em “ciencia da pedrada” (e como a autora deste livro o demonstra bem... com a simplicidade e humildade de uma verdadeira autoridade na materia)! Em suma: deixem-se de exclusivismos, elitismos, racismos, vulturismos, imperialismos ocidentais, neo-colonialismos, imposicoes, reducionismos e limitacoes fascistoides, novo-riquismos culturais e pseudo-academismos arrogantes (wa xtranhala!) e dancem so'… se souberem e se puderem! E, acima de tudo, deixem os outros (os verdadeiros "criativos") dançar em paz!
{Please click on the pictures to access sources}
A few years ago, when I was at my last go (so far…) at “structured” or “conventional” dance, a colleague brought to my attention the book “To Dance is Human: A Theory of Nonverbal Communication”*, by Judith Lynne Hanna, which I then bought. Today I feel particularly like transcribing here a chapter from it entitled “Dance?”, highlighting upfront the following excerpts:
There is obviously a need to define or, using Abraham Kaplan’s phrase, to “specify the meaning of” a behavior before exploring its complexities. For the anthropologist who strives to identify, describe and explain phenomena within a cross-cultural perspective, it is essential to adopt a definition which both indicates the sets of features which are referents for a concept and, also, remains flexible about empirical issues.
Of course, our choice of conceptual apparatus, our working distinctions, need constant refinement, and we must be alert to indications that something may be escaping us because our approach has blind spots. A decade ago I began (as observer, participant, and/or field researcher) to examine dance forms ranging from classical theater ballet to popular dance in the West to Latin American, Caribbean, and African social and ritual forms; later I examined a variety of dance forms from other parts of the world. I wondered if these were common characteristics in the kinds of phenomena different people call dance (or what westerners would generally categorize as dance – as a westerner I am obviously influenced by my culture). Examining dance cross-culturally to formulate hypothesis, to establish the range of variation of dance phenomena and their concepts of culture or social organization, I was forced to develop an overarching analytic definition.
Such a definition should, I thought, transcend the participants’ concepts of dance, which undoubtedly, include some criteria that other groups exclude and debar, some they encompass. Further, the definition should include behavior which the appearance of what is generally considered dance, even though, for the participants concerned, it is not dance because they have no such concept. I have observed or read about a number of groups who seemingly have quite different ways of conceptualizing what I think of as dance.Many societies have multiple words for different dances without having a single generic term. (…) For the Ubakala of Nigeria, drum accompaniment is a necessary part of dance and, thus, the word denoting dance also denotes a drum and a play. Elsewhere in Africa, for example among the Akan, Efik, Azande, and Kanba, dance involves vocal and instrumental music, including the drum. On the other hand, many African groups, such as the Zulu, Matabele, Shi, Ngoni, Tutkana, and Wanyaturu, do not use drums and some even denigrate users of drums. Among the Tiv of Nigeria, the word dance also encompasses activities we exclude from the performing arts: games and gambling.
The following conceptualization of dance is a researcher’s abstraction (an etic concept) partially generated from analyzing native (emic) definitions. This working definition was reached through empirical observation, a survey of literature relevant to dance, consideration of dance movement elements and the human body (the instrument of dance) in motion, and through adhering to a holistic approach. Holism does not mean an attempt to know everything, but it assumes that dance is essentially meaningful in its sociocultural context. It implies functional relations within a system but does not assume total interrelatedness nor relationships of equal importance.
***
*To which I would just add: indeed, to dance is only human – it doesn’t need to be transformed into “rocket science”!
Ou, para colocar a questao de forma mais amena para certas cabeças duras e incultas em terras onde quem tem meio olho e’ rei e quem tenha lido, decorado ou copiado meia duzia de livros se auto-intitula “doutor cientista” e/ou "especialista", ou ainda quem tenha feito uma “visita oficial” guiada de meia hora, com guarda-costas, a uma das verdadeiras fontes de Cultura (… que Dançam desde que a humanidade existe e cujos conceitos precedem de milenios quaisquer “contemporaneas teorias da dança” - para hoje serem apedrejadas com calhaus abusivos e atrevidos tipo "o povo nao sabe o que e' bom"…), se considera “pesquisador”, “antropologo”, “etnologo”, “pensologo”, ou… “dançologo”: Dançar e’ humano, nao tem que ser transformado em “ciencia da pedrada” (e como a autora deste livro o demonstra bem... com a simplicidade e humildade de uma verdadeira autoridade na materia)! Em suma: deixem-se de exclusivismos, elitismos, racismos, vulturismos, imperialismos ocidentais, neo-colonialismos, imposicoes, reducionismos e limitacoes fascistoides, novo-riquismos culturais e pseudo-academismos arrogantes (wa xtranhala!) e dancem so'… se souberem e se puderem! E, acima de tudo, deixem os outros (os verdadeiros "criativos") dançar em paz!
{Please click on the pictures to access sources}
.jpg)
.jpg)
