Who owns dance?

Dance is as human as human race. It is an aspect of daily life and exemplification of social, political, theological, cultural, and economic existentialities of any given community. The discipline of dance has metamorphosed with evolution in human civilization. As Judith L. Hanna elegantly put it, to dance is human. But who owns dance? The proceeding questions will set the stage for this discourse: why did man dance? How did man come to dance? When did man begin to dance? Did man dance for money or to accumulate wealth? How did man sustain the durability of dance? Why didn’t man abandon dance for other things? Is man living by ethos that influenced the genesis of dance?

Firstly, to locate the true owner (s) of dance, we need to trace the origin of man and dance (in the same order). Let us situate the discussion in this historical context. As I have already noted, dance is as old as human ancestry. In his book The Africans: A Triple Heritage, Ali Mazrui posits that if there was a Garden of Eden where the first man and woman lived, that garden was Africa. The continent of Africa is the: mother of humanity, Eden of human ancestry, and brooder of human civilization. Professor Mazrui’s view is based on archeological excavations of Pronconsul in 1931 and Zinjanthropus in 1959 in Rusinga Island and Olduvai Gorge (east Africa) respectively. Laboratory experiments carried out on Pronconsul suggest that s/he might have lived 25 million years ago as compared to Zinjanthropus’s one and a half and one and three-quarter millions years.

"The skull of Zinjanthropus was found in association with chipped ‘pebble tools’," Mazrui noted. Therefore, East Africa, as archeological evidence indicates, is the original home of the very first Homo sapiens (thinking man), Homo erectus, and Homo hibilis. Did the original Homo sapiens, Homo erectus, and Homo hibilis dance? Is there a possibility that ancient human civilization transmuted with metamorphosis of music and dance?

If man started life as a gatherer and hunter then man engaged in dance. It must be born in mind that Zinjathropus, for example, was found with “pebble tools.” Possibly, early man engaged in food production for human survival. This search for survival facilitated man’s attachment to the earth and nature. The earth became the mother of human life. To celebrate harvest, gatherers danced and sang. It is detectable that to celebrate a successful hunting venture, the hunters danced. Furthermore, hunters camouflaged using body movements (mimicking animals) as one of their hunting strategies.  Therefore, it is conceivable that these lived experiences incarnated movement.

Another important factor that contributed to creation of music and dance is man’s desire to communicate. Did dance and music proceed or precede oral/verbal language? Did verbal language give birth to dance and music? Did dance and music contribute to formation of verbal language? The thesis that dance and music predated verbal/oral language is undisputable. In the process of developing lingua franca, man relied on movements and sounds. For example, before early man named a pounding stick or hoe, or spear, he first made it; before man got names for different species of food crops, he first gathered them; before man named different wild edible animals, he first hunted them. In most activities that man engaged in such as hunting, fishing, farming, etc the theory “action speaks louder than words” was very apparent. In a number of ethnic dances, vocal accompaniment just accompanies movements, thus lending credibility to the assertion that, perhaps, dance predated verbal language.  

Death, life and natural calamities compelled early man to be spiritual. Man recognized that lifespace rotated around extra-ordinary earthly and non-earthly forces. Hence, spiritual and worship dance emerged as a result of this ethno-divinity.     It is this buffet of human historical circumstances that created conditions that compelled early man to dance. Therefore, if Africa is the cradle of human ancestry as archeological and pantological studies have indicated, she is the mother of human artistry.

The quest for human survival coupled with the activities that facilitated the desire for man’s existence made man a competitive animal. Man became territorial as communities claimed ownership of hunting and gathering territories. With this competition came the search for communal identity and rivalry between communities. Dance and music emerged a form of identity. Very imperative to underscore from this historic creative configuration and artistic taxonomy is the fact that dance emerged as a communal practice, leading to communal identity. The quest for survival (through farming, hunting etc) and search for spirituality connived to instigate communal kineasthetic creativity.  How did communities create dances for communal identity, celebration, rite of passage, spiritual fulfillment, and socialization?

Communities developed philosophies that support communal value, knowledge and support chains. The philosophies rotated around spirituality, continuity of life, ancestry, human survival and existence, communal hierarchy, with nature as the foundation.

Creation of different tribal/ethnic music and dances depended on the experiences of different individuals. The performance experience acted as space that allowed individuals to express their experiences and capabilities; a negotiation round table on which communal identity was discussed and forged. In a reciprocal style, the individual identity formed communal identity, and the group identity reinforced individual distinctiveness. Individual performers relinquished their individual personality to form community characteristics. Choreography and performance happened at the same time but with lasting and communally accepted byproducts.  Consequently, different forms of dance such as funeral dances, initiation dances, harvest dances, royal dances, worship dances, children dances, courtship dances, fertility dances among others were created to define human existence.

Until colonial interruption, this practice was still very common, popular and highly appreciated in Africa. It is worth noting that communal dance performances are still subsisting in communities that have not been fully permeated by urbanization and globalization. From the above disclosure, it is valid to conclude that the history of dance and man is soaked in communal ownership. Whereas communal choreography, performance and ownership of dance is still apparent is some communities, there is an emerging trend of individual ownership of dance. At what point did individuals claim ownership of dance? How did we get to this situation? What socio-cultural trends have facilitated this mindset and behavior? Is individualized ownership of dance good for dance and man? Is the dance sector dancing to the tunes of capitalism? Who owns dance? This is what the following text is all about.

Margaret H’Doubler provides partial answers to the aforementioned questions when she posits thus:

Every age has had its dance, and the fact that dance has lived is evidence of its value. The universal interest in dance rests upon the fact that it carries on and systematizes an activity that is operative in everyone’s experience. It is co-existence with life. Like the history of all other arts, the history of dance follows those changes in attitude and feeling and those fluctuations in man’s concept of art which have given to every period its distinctive qualities. Its history therefore is one of changes in those points of view by which man has built his ideals rather than a chronicle of techniques and forms.

In Africa, ethnic dances are hastily becoming neo-traditional. Dance troupes, companies and individuals are claiming ownership and dance. This practice is a new phenomenon. The fact that the concept ‘choreographer’, for example, does not exist in ethnic tribal languages in Africa is evidence enough to show that dance artistry was not individualized. The process of creating these dances was so organic, communally oriented and all inclusive to the extent that communities did not deem it imperative to brand individuals choreographers. The community was the choreographer. As the legal fraternity and adherents of indigenous studies are grappling with copyright laws, and fathoming who does and who does not own indigenous ethnic dances, individuals and companies have gone ahead to claim copyright over indigenous dance forms. Entangled in this struggle of ownership and cultural disempowerment, the communities where these dances originate are just looking on helplessly. Legislation is not strong enough to defend these communities and their products from this emerging breed of dance ‘klepto-capitalists’. 

Certainly, individual ownership of dance coincided with ‘theatrerization’ and ‘choreographirization’ of dance. When dance migrated from community to the theatre, the era of individual ownership was ushered in. Dance as a performing art lost out as well. Quite a number of dance elements were altered to suit the tastes, preferences and demands of the buyers-audience. The theatrical setting could not allow exploration of dance to its entirety.

More still, this forced migration of dance from the community to a theatrical stage was demographically divisive. It created two groups: the active performers on one hand and a very passive audience on the other. The performer vs audience arrangement alienated the audience from taking an active role in communal performance, choreography and evaluation of the performance. The performer got a justification to claim ownership of dance. Companies and individuals owned dance techniques and styles. The performers packaged dance as a product and service and they demanded pay for provision of the same. Dance became a commercial commodity with buyers (audience) on one hand and sellers (performers) on the other. Individual ownership of dance was in full force.

Let us now focus on how formal education has concretized individual ownership of dance. By formal education, the author refers to the transfer of skills and knowledge from the teacher or instructor to the learner or student in a classroom and studio setting. Formal education has been a significant catalyst in advancing human civilization. In a number of cases, formal education has acted as fountain of human innovation. But formal education has some drawbacks. One of the downsides of formal education is its ability to institutionalize and pigeonhole knowledge. As a result of formal education, we now live in a world of the educated/knowledgeable and less or/and uneducated (less knowledgeable).  Yet, like oxygen, knowledge is ubiquitous. Additionally, formal education creates ersatz social classes, pitying the educated (the who-can-affords) against the less educated (the who-cannot-affords). Formal education is a demographically divisive tool.

In lieu of the above consideration, it is a considered view of the author that ‘classroomization’, institutionalization, and ‘studiorization’ of dance have, to a very large extent, compounded its individualized ownership. ‘Classroomization’ and ‘studiorization’ of dances raises the challenge of accessibility and affordability. Affordability does not automatically translate into accessibility as some schools, universities and studios require a maximum number of students admitted. On the other hand, accessibility to dance studios and classrooms does not automatically translate into ownership of dance by the learners. The dance instructor, teacher, educator or trainer still owns dance; s/he owns the material that s/he teaches. In this case, the dance teacher/instructor/ trainer and institutions own dance. The quest for ownership of dance rages on.

Especially noteworthy is the fact that dance studios are more exclusive of people than inclusive. The ones who cannot afford training charges are kept out while those who can afford are admitted. Yet, lack of ability to meet the studio charges does not mean deficiency of desire to get involved in any dance experience. Clearly, commercialization, commoditization, and monetization of dance play into this ownership nomenclature.

What is the way forward? The first step is for us to recognize and acknowledge that dances came from people-communities; dance belongs to people. To de-individualize ownership of dance, we need to: de-classroomize, de-institutionalize, de-studiorize, de-theatricalize, de-choreographirize, de-monetize, de-commoditize, and de-commercialize dance. Let us break all the barriers that deter people from accessing and actively participating in dance experiences. The deterrent walls have been built with bricks of over theatrerization, classroomization, choreographirization, commoditization, institutionalization, studiorization, commercialization and monetization of dance.

The home should be the starting point in the revolutionalization process of dance ownership. How can a child grow up without dance? How can a couple express love for each other without dance? How can a family host visitors without dance? How can a family convene a meeting without dance? How can communities live in harmony without dance? How can elders tell stories to young ones without dance? How can parents show love to their children without dance? How can children show love to their parents and fellow siblings without dance? How can a person, family or community celebrate any achievement without dance? The family is the best nursery of dance; the courtyard is the most perfect classroom/studio for dance training; open community spaces are the most ideal performance stages for dance; the people are the best performers, choreographers, designers and critics of dance.

Dance came from people, it belongs to people. People deserve to own it. If dance is taken back to the people it will flourish, and life will blossom.  Let’s take dance to the people; perform, enjoy and create it with people. Dance needs all of us, and we all need dance.

The Struggle for Global Economic and Military Superiority: Implications for Africa's 'Rich-Poor' Countries.

The contest for global economic superiority has just started. As Western economies sink into economic recession, Africa, which had been alienated from global trade for ages, seems to be their savior. The exodus of Western and Eastern investors to Africa is surging. Are these foreign investments in Africa beneficial to Africans? Will these investments situate Africa at the centre of global economic enterprise or relegate it to the periphery?

The credit crunch that hit North America in 2008 and the recurring Eurozone crisis has left a spin in global economic, military and political power play. When the financial crisis hit the world’s biggest economies, the developing economies, especially in Africa, thought that they were far away from the collapsing economic debris. As it turned out, this fervor was false. Most developing economies have been smacked by the ever increasing global oil prices and the imbalances in global trade.

In Uganda, for example, the economy was hit by runaway inflation that swung to alarming double digits in just a space of five months, owing in part, to domestic mismanagement of the economy and high global food and oil prices.

As developed and developing economies are entangled in this economic quagmire, the struggles for global economic, political and military superiority will not but intensify. Apparently, the crown for global superiority is slowly but steadily sliding through the hands of the US and Europe, the two global players that have for long dominated the global economic enterprise. “European Union’s current members accounted for 31% of the world economy in 1980 (measured by each country’s GDP, adjusted for purchasing power). By 2011, the EU share slid to 20%, and the Fund projects that it will decline further, to 17%, by 2017.” (Jeffrey D. Sachs, A World Adrift, The Independent of May 5, 2012).

This startling economic squeeze has stretched beyond Europe. “The US share of global GDP, around 25% in 1980, declined to 19% in 2011, and is expected to slip to 18% in 2017, by which point the IMF expects that China will have overtaken the US economy in absolute size (adjusted for purchasing power).” (Jeffrey D. Sachs, A World Adrift, The Independent May 5, 2012). Consequently, “The US, characteristically these days, insists that it will not join any new IMF bailout fund. The US Congress has increasingly embraced isolationist economic policies, especially regarding financial help for others. This, too, reflects the long-term wane of US power.”, Sachs notes. Even with austerity measures in Europe and government bailout plans in the US, there are no prospects of economic recovery on the horizon.

As the US and Eurozone slide into economic chasm, other powers are emerging to challenge this global dominance and claim their share of the global economic enterprise. China, for example has made economic inroads in Africa. Dambisa Moyo has observed that, “In 2009, China became Africa’s single largest trading partner, surpassing the United States. And China’s foreign direct investment in Africa has skyrocketed from under $100 million in 2003 to more than $12 billion in 2011.” The Zambian born economist has further noted, “Since China began seriously investing in Africa in 2005, it has been routinely cast as a stealthy imperialist with a voracious appetite for commodities and no qualms about exploiting Africans to get them. It is no wonder that the American government is lashing out at its new competitor — while China has made huge investments in Africa, the United States has stood on the sidelines and watched its influence on the continent fade.” 

The new African Union Headquarters in Addis Ababa that was constructed with $200 million donation from the Chinese government.

The biggest threat to the US and Eurozone may seem to be China on the surface, but underneath, the rise of the entire BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) economies is destined to alter the global economic, political and military dynamic. The positive economic strides made by economies in the Middle East in sectors such as: oil and gas, tourism, manufacturing, sports, and entertainment in the last two decades cannot be overlooked. As Sachs has noted, “The shift to such a multipolar world has the advantage that no single country or small bloc can dominate the others. Each region can end up with room for maneuver and some space to find its own path. Yet a multipolar world also carries great risks, notably that major global challenges will go unmet, because no single country or region is able or willing to coordinate a global response, or even to participate in one.” The global economic ignominy is threatening to send more hard punches. What is yet to be seen is whether global economies will stand this force.

Africa's 'rich-poor' countries within the context of global economic and military contest.

In his book The African Predicament and the American Experience: A Tale of two Edens, Ali A. Mazrui posits thus “Africa in the twenty-first century is likely to be one of the final battlegrounds of new forces of globalization – for better or for worse.” The story of Africa and her mineral resources is a tale of plunder, manipulation, and exploitation. A continent endowed with natural mineral resources harbours the world’s most poor, illiterate, disadvantaged and vulnerable. One may even think that African mineral resources are still lying idle beneath the feet of continental Africans. Alas, the minerals are exploited day and night, and money and whatever it is exchanged for, is swindled.

The increasing global resource constraints have led to massive exodus of genuine and sham foreign investors (some people refer to these klepto-capitalists as harvesters) from the West and East to the African continent. In June 2011, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton gave a speech in Zambia warning of a “new colonialism” threatening the African continent. Referring to China’s increased influence in Africa, Clinton noted, “We saw that during colonial times, it is easy to come in, take out natural resources, pay off leaders and leave.” Whether China’s presence on the African continent is going to transmute into the second scramble and partition of Africa is a tale that posterity will tell.   What is certainly clear is that there is greater than ever clamor for Africa’s mineral resources from players from the West and East.

The claim that the West is guilty for the economic and political plight of African states is as valid as the assertion that the continental African political elite are responsible for the continent’s economic and political misery. Over the years, African governments through a handful of African political class and elites have signed clandestine deals with Western and Eastern multinational companies, to allow these companies full and unabated access to Africa’s mineral wealth.

 African leaders at the inauguration ceremony of the new African Union headquarters in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

Clandestine oil agreements, land give away, tax exemptions, and other government subsidies between African political elites and multimillion corporations from the west and the East is rampant. In some cases, foreign governments and corporations have been given total admittance to extract resources for mere exchange of military arms by African political charlatans under the guise of universal economic and social multilateralism. This is compounded by the fact that legislation in African countries is too weak to protect people from any form of economic exploitation and manipulation.

Money that is generated through these transactions does not filter down to the rightful recipients. In Africa, the trickle-down theory has failed to work especially when political elites are at the top of the trickle-down chain. As such, majority of African natives have capsized in trenches of poverty, famine, and limited or no access to public good and services. African governments have become agents of self- human destruction and sabotage.

The rift between the rich (minority) and the poor (majority) has done all but widened, while money from these economic deals, which is routinely swindled through corruption by the political elites, is lying in foreign banks in Europe and America. Sadly, with access to these furtive proceeds, African political elites have succeeded in entrenching authoritarian rule and dictatorship that is devoid of rule of laws, respect for human rights, empowerment of people, and economic development.

Africa is rich in mineral resources but her people will remain poor until, maybe, the mineral resources are exhausted; Africa will have fertile soils but her people will remain impoverished and malnourished; Africa’s mineral resources will have market in the West and East but her people will remain less educated; African governments and political elites will always make a bite out of dealings with foreign governments and multimillion companies but they will not provide public goods and services; in some cases, natural resources will continue to be exchange for arms and the sons and daughters of mother Africa will continues to swim in a murky and bloody ocean of armed conflicts.

A very good case in point is Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). DRC is considered to be the world’s wealthiest country boasting with mineral resources worth 170 trillion dollars (this is bigger than the economy of the US and Europe combined). Contrastingly, majority of the 70 million people that live in Congo live in abject poverty. Yet Congo’s mineral resources have been exploited since the colonial period. 

The global economic barometer indicates that the current global economic constrictions are here to stay. The more these existentialities manifest themselves in economies in the West and the East, the more voracity for Africa’s resources will heighten, and the more people in Africa’s ‘rich poor’ countries will be wrapped in rugs of poverty and hopelessness.

I hope the winds of posterity will turn the African dice to a much better plane!