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.