The Anthropomorphism of Dance

Anthropomorphism

A thread on the Unmata Tribe got me thinking... dance is anthropomorphized subjectively by the viewer as it is performed by their performer.

Dance itself is an activity, an abstract concept that would not exist if there was no one there to do it. If we use the Greek word "choros" it would probably plug into my analogy a little better as choros more implies the rhythmic, timed, patterned movement of a group of objects. In using the word choros the world dances, the stars dance, the hours dance through the day, etc. But humans also dance and not just in our day to day business. We dance with inscrutable, wide ranging motivations and to an equal number of purposes.

Though most humans have the ability to speak and the ability to move we have a wide array of different languages and bodily gestures that convey meaning. Language is subjectively understood. So it is also true for dance. Dance is supposed to be the wordless ambassador on a general level but how the dialects do get lost in translation sometimes! Dance is understood subjectively based upon cultural perceptions and personal experience factors. It is not universal. In fact dance forms themselves are rather like languages with stylistic differences within each form being rather like dialects or accents. There is nothing universal about it at all apart from "we all dance"; but we all breathe and blink and reproduce as well so perhaps the universal quality that we attribute to dance is more akin to the universal quality of being human.

And now for the anthropomorphism. We, as human beings, interpret the world based upon our individual understandings of it. There is no other choice, you are the summation of what you are composed of --what you know. Each human being anthropomorphizes to some extent unless they purposefully make an attempt to not do so. Take a look at the popularity of LOL Cats or the number of people who name their cars and give them human emotions, religious people who beg the invisible for help and so forth. Dance is an abstract concept that many people, especially dancers, attribute some form of life and self awareness to. This blog calls itself a "puppet of the muses," the personifications of art and history. Personification. Anthropomorphism.

We anthropomorphize dance by attributing characteristics like gender to one form or another. This is a masculine dance. Why? Because it is performed by males. Why? Not because only males are physically capable of doing it but actually because it just IS. The anthropomorphism, and thereby gender personification, of dance is a stumbling block in the equation of human equity but it is also a matter of cultural heritage and identity.

Zeibekiko is a Greco-Turkish (ethnically ambiguous) men's dance. It is generally thought of as being Greek. We identify this dance as a Greek dance performed by men. Does this mean that a woman from Greece who performs this dance is not Greek? Or does it mean that she is not a woman? Or has she just crossed a hazy taboo line of authenticity or propriety? Why would this cause a flinch at all if dance itself was not to some degree gender personified? If it is danced by women, and it has been (myself included), it is not a flaw or a shame to the female dancer. It only becomes an issue in the eyes of those who witness it. Spectators, audiences, perceive what is essentially good and bad grammar from a perspective of choros. The accepted language of dance within their own cultural and personal paradigm. In this way it is the viewers who shape the meaning of a dance and not the dancer him/her or themselves.

Dance has gender. Dance is language. Dance has a spiritual essence. Dance itself is emotional. Dance is self imposing upon others. Dance has ever been... personified.