Neo-liberal Economic Policies and the Changing Face of Arts Performance in Uganda

In 1987, the World Bank and International Monetary fund in liaison with the government of Uganda introduced structural adjustment programs (SAPs) in Uganda, but these programs were not implemented until 1992. At this time, Uganda was just recovering from a 5-year guerrilla war that had ravaged the performance of the economy, disrupted social harmony, and shattered political stability.

SAPs included a package of economic adjustment policies broadly divided into stabilisation and fiscal policies, supported by the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, respectively. These policies were closely linked, their implementation overlapped, and different components of the package had multiple impact (Makhoka, 2001). One of the major components of SAPs was the neo-liberal economic policy that saw privatization and de-nationalization of government ran parastatals.

Whereas economic liberalization was primarily meant to steer and catalyse growth of Uganda’s economy, its consequences extended to affect and impact socially and communally owned and ran cultural and non-cultural activities. In the realm of the arts, this change altered the packaging, performance, appreciation, and contexts of ethnic music and dance practices.

Before neo-liberal policies were adopted in Uganda, performance of music and dance was predominantly participatory and communal, with ownership firmly resting in the hands of collective communities - tribes, clans, villages, etc.  Music and dances were more of a social service than a commercial commodity. They were meant to facilitate social synchrony and stability, and entrench cultural consciousness. Cultural institutions and leaders were the custodians of these artistic practices and they presided over the preservation and promotion of the arts, and guarded the arts against possible abuse.

Adoption of SAPs by the Ugandan government created an economic environment that accelerated and precipitated commercialization of arts practices. Particularly, privatization led to emergency of the urban middle class, a condition that created high demand for entertainment services for leisure and hospitality. To feed this emerging demand, traditional dance troupes were formed. Over the years, these troupes have expropriated dance and music art forms from the countryside tribes and appropriated this artistic material and experiences to fit and quench the clientele demands in urban and semi-urban areas.  Performances have been presented for seminars, weddings, conferences, trade fairs, and other forms of social, commercial and political gatherings. This shift has had an impact on how these art forms are packaged in terms of costume, instrumental and vocal accompaniment, content, form and concepts.

Dancers of Ndere troupe performing before a seated audience at Ndere Center. Courtesy Photo

Additionally, whereas participatory communal performance still exists in some parts of the country, there is a major shift from participatory to presentational style of performance. Instead of communities creating and performing music and dance together, there is speedy artistic stratification, where individuals and groups of individuals have specialized in music and dance performance as an income-generating venture. This trend has created a producer-consumer divide, with the audience being consumers with performers as producers. This economic dynamic has given birth to specialties such as arts promoters, producers, marketers, distributors, copyright experts, critics, among others.

When money and economic survival took center stage, people slowly stopped dancing for the gods, deities, spirits, and kings. Folk dancing scenes changed from family courtyards, religious and sacred sites, cultural and social venues and open community spaces to theaters, conference halls, and other commercial platforms. It is very rare to find rural folk performing dances for the rain or fertility everyday. Looking for money to load air time on a phone is much more important than performing for the gods. You rather send your son to an urban areas to pursue a career as a dancer than letting his stay in the village to become a master dancer of the clan. Drum makers also developed some new ideas. In addition to the normal dance performance drums, drum makers started making different kinds drums for decoration.

The expansion of the arts industry as a commercial base coincided with liberalization of the media sector, both consequences of neo-economic liberalization, which has led to digitalization of arts practices. Currently, there are more than 10 television stations and 30 radio stations in Uganda. With the media acting as one of the sources of entertainment, performing artists have resorted to TV and radio to disseminate their art works. Music and dance forms have continued to migration from communities and now to digitalized media and social media.

It is likely that performing artists will continue to respond to the whims of the ever-changing economic dynamic in Uganda. The more these new artistic and creative trends get deeply entrenched in our society, the more folk dance and music forms will get disengaged from their original contexts, purpose, and essence of performance. 

What is changing traditional dance and music performance lies in our pockets and ATM machines. For as long as the pockets and ATM machines are still begging, the state of traditional music and dance will continue evolving. The only prayers should be that we do not lose it all. 

With all said and done, the status of the arts will never ever be the same again!

Alfdaniels Mabingo is a Fulbright Fellow teaching East African Dances at New York University

An abridged version of this article was published by Global Leaders United online magazine

Atlantic divide: Comparison between Dance Practices in the winter temperate and African tropics

There is a school of thought that believes that the differences between dance practices in the northern hemisphere and African tropics are purely cultural. In this essay, I observe that in addition to culture, the social and economic orientation, progression, patterns and trends that underpin the two societies have intruded quite considerably in the way people in the two societies (North America and African tropics) view, embrace, produce, construct, apply, and value dance, and how this has influenced the availability and accessibility of dance.

For lucidity, I will restrict my discussion to vernacular dance traditions that exist in communities in sub-Saharan Africa in comparison with theatrical dance practices in the northern hemisphere, particularly the US. I will apply Karl Marx’s The communist Manifesto, Emile Durkheim’s The division of labor in society, and Darwin’s theory of evolution as a lens to deconstruct how social and economic constructions, integration, and progression have interlocked with individual distinctiveness to fashion the trends in dance traditions in the two societies. Further, reference will also be made to Pierre Bourdieu’s idea of social field (1984, 1985), which looks at a specific domain of activity defined by the purpose and goals of the activity as well as the values, power relations, and type of capital determining the role of relationship, social positioning, and status of actors, and activities within [a given] field (as cited in Turino, 2008, pp. 25 – 26).

Karl Marx traces the development of capitalism in the collapse of feudalism in the 12^th century. Capitalism as a system of world order was hastily precipitated by expropriation of surplus from former feudalism serfs and appropriation of this surplus by the bourgeoisies in the 15^th century, and the reformation in the 16^th century. Antiquity, which saw the emergence of urban centers only jump started the already capitalistic tendencies that were characteristic of the previous economic epoch. The increase in manufacturing and commercialization in urban centers saw former serfs flood urban areas for work. These serfs became wage labourers serving their employers – the owners of the capital and means of production in this new arrangement. The discovery of the Americas, and metals such as gold and silver in the Americas increased the demand for economic goods. To meet this demand, mechanization was integrated into the production chain hence giving birth to European industrial revolution. The revolution gave birth to commercialization of goods and services. At this stage, capitalism had reached its stage of maturity and the class-divide between the owners of the means of production and capital (bourgeoisies) and proletariats/workers/labourers was plain.

Emile Durkheim saw social integration, construction and progression as a product of evolution and not revolution. He posited that the pre-modern society was based on mechanical solidarity where different individuals within a community were bound together by communal values, customs and practices, and were obliged to conform to the same mindset. This, according to him, gave birth to conscience collective, a state where individuals in the community posses a shared communal way of thinking.  He contrasts mechanical solidarity with organic solidarity, which he argues, is characteristic of modern society. Organic solidarity is attained when over population culminates into division of labour as different individuals with diverse skills proceed to concentrate on their areas and skills of competence. Consequently, there emerges inter-dependency as a result of realization that these individuals need each other in this social and economic configuration. Durkheim argues that inter-dependency leads to e appoint of equilibrium in a given community. The community or society can then move to exchange and interact with other community to achieve moral or dynamic density.

Dance in the winter temperate: A Marxist replica

Looking at the trends of dance in the winter temperate, one notices some salient characteristic that Karl Marx propounds in his attempt to account for the genesis of capitalism. Like the serf-turned-wage labourers at the beginning of capitalism, dancers, choreographers and other dance practitioners are responding to the forces and pressures of demand and supply that are typical of a capitalistic world. Dance metamorphosed from being a social activity that people enjoy to merry-make and build communities. It is a commercial product that goes through a process of packaging, branding and marketing with the dancer, choreographer as a producer and the audiences as consumers. The dance studios are factories where the products are manufactured. The media is the space where these products are marketed, and theatres and other performance spaces are supply outlets where these products are sold. This process of commoditizing and monetizing dance entails scripting and auditing of dance production processes.

In this production chain, the choreographer owns the means of production and the dancers are his/her workers. Both the owners of the means of production and the workers aim to maximize profit out of this venture. Where does this leave dance? Dance will still remain a slave to commercialization with the choreographer as a producer, the dancer as a worker, the studio as a factory, the performances spaces as supply outlets, and the audience as the consumers alienated from the production grid. This new configuration is being compounded by advancement in digital technology which is increasingly tilting the way people in the winter temperate interact with dance. There is rise in objectification of dance through high fidelity, a pattern that has challenged the spontaneity and transiency of live dance performance.   

The ever evolving social and economic patterns in the West have made dance performance become more presentational than participatory, creating a situation where one group of people, the artists, prepare and produce dance for another group of people, who do not participate in making the dance (Turino, 2008, p. 26) in the overall artistic industrial complex.

Living in the shadow of Durkheimian organic and mechanical solidarity: Dance Practices in African tropics

Dance making, supply and consumption in community-based African tropics is inherently Durkheimian in organization, value, and objective. It exemplifies organic and mechanical solidarity as put forth by Durkheim. Dance is a product of collective conscience that is deeply anchored in communal philosophy, values, and procedures. The production processes is an amalgam of different individual experiences that are geared towards engraving the communal ideologies and context of reception and human existence. As such, there is participatory performance where there are no artistic-audience distinction, only participants and potential participants performing different roles, and the primary goal is to involve the maximum number of people in some performance role (Turino, 2008, p. 29). Failure to participate leads to shriveling of an individual’s social responsibility. In participatory music [dance] making one’s primary attention is on the activity, on the doing, and on the other participants, rather than on the end product that results from the activity (Turino, 2008, p. 28).

This communal and participatory arrangement of dance making does not imply simplicity of these dance forms. The complexity and dynamism of these dance practices resides in the convergence of divergent individual competences. The dance activities encompass Csikszentmihalyi’s flow theory which states that the most important condition for flow is that the activity must include the proper balance between inherent challenges and the skill level of the actor. If the challenges are too low, the activity becomes boring and the mind wanders elsewhere; if the challenge it too high, the activity leads to frustration and the actor cannot engage fully. When the balance is just right, it enhances concentration, and sense of being ‘in the groove,’ at one with the activity and the other people involved.  It is through this negotiated and continuous interdependence that society attains what social anthropologist Edward Hall would call social synchrony.

Clearly, progress in social and economic civilization in the winter temperate and African tropics symbolizes Darwinian evolution theory, albeit differently. On the one hand, the ever shifting dance production patterns are responding to a highly competitive capitalistic environment where transactional consumption of dance is driven by need for mass production and profiteering as producers (choreographers) and workers (dancers). The dance making and supply process is meant to facilitate the survival of the producers that are surrounded by permanent states of change and flux. On the other hand, in the African tropics, communal consumption of dance is driven by the need for shared production. The dance production and supply process is meant to strengthen individual survival in the group, co-existence within the group, and extension the subsistence of the entire community. The stimuli that leads to competition of individuals in dance production, supply, and transaction processes is inward (communal cohesion) in African tropics and outward (consumer satisfaction) in the winter temperate.

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.