Dance in Anthropological Perspective

Dance in Anthropological PerspectiveAuthor(s): Adrienne L. KaepplerSource: Annual Review of Anthropology, Vol. 7 (1978), pp. 31-49Published by: Annual ReviewsStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2155686 .Accessed: 09/07/2014 03:39

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Annual Reviews is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Annual Review ofAnthropology.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 78.97.216.244 on Wed, 9 Jul 2014 03:39:36 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Ann. Rev. Anthropol. 1978. 7:31-49 Copyright (D 1978 by Annual Reviews Inc. All rights reserved

DANCE IN .9606 ANTHROPOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE

Adrienne L. Kaeppler

Bernice Pauahi Bishop Museum, Honolulu, Hawaii 96818

INTRODUCTION

In 1960 Gertrude Prokosch Kurath published her pioneering "Panorama" of dance ethnology in Current Anthropology (22), which is partly responsible for the establishment of the ethnographic study of dance as a formal part of the discipline of anthropology. In this paper Kurath, the parent of dance ethnology herself, set out what she felt to be the objectives of such a study -"the subject matter, the scope, and the procedures of this emerging discipline" (22, p. 234)-and concluded that the ethnographic study of dance should be viewed "as an approach toward, and a method of, eliciting the place of dance in human life-in a word, as a branch of anthropology" (p. 250).

Evidently her article (and the poor "CA treatment" it received) failed to make an impact, for even in 1974 at an international conference on the subject it was found appropriate to invite only ten people,' including an ethnomusicologist and an art historian.

A 1972 "review of the field" for the Committee on Research in Dance (CORD), by Anya Peterson Royce (34), attempted to make the anthropological study of dance interesting and relevant to individuals in the wider discipline of dance. Yet at the 1976 meeting of CORD only six papers

'Irmgard Bartenieff, Judith Hanna, Adrienne Kaeppler, Joann Kealiinohomoku, Gyorgy Martin, Alan Merriam, Gabriel Moedano, Anya Royce, Allegra Snyder, and Robert Thomp- son.

31 0084-6570/78/1015-0031 $01.00


32 KAEPPLER

focused on dance ethnology. One, then, might question the propriety of a paper on such an esoteric aspect of our subject for the Annual Review of Anthropology. However, the aim of these volumes is a critical discussion of the state of research in the various fields, and thus it is perhaps appropriate to suggest that the study of dance has more to offer than most anthropologists are prepared to expect.

Dance is a cultural form that results from creative processes which manipulate human bodies in time and space. The cultural form produced, though transient, has structured content, is a visual manifestation of social relations, and may be the subject of an elaborate aesthetic system-surely the domain of anthropologists.

Anthropologists, when studying their chosen community or subject, for the most part pay little serious attention to such things as dance or that aspect of human behavior loosely called the arts-relegating these esoterica in their classes to the never-reached end of a course, coupling them with "play," and considering them the frosting on the cake of the more important parts of culture. Occasionally an anthropologist will make a tape recording of dance songs, photographs of costumes, or even motion pic- tures, thinking that he has done his duty as far as these aspects of culture are concerned. Although such recordings and photography may be of interest as far as the sound organization or movement patterns of a society are concerned, by themselves they can tell us little that is anthropologically significant. At least from the point of view of the "new ethnography," an adequate description of a culture should place the same emphasis on dance as that given it by the members of that society-and in some parts of the world this is indeed great. Anthropologists have been slow to recognize that a study and understanding of dance-which is sometimes a very conspicu- ous part of culture-may actually assist in an understanding of the deep structure of a society and bring new insights into understanding other parts of culture.

Even fewer anthropologists have addressed themselves to aesthetics or the aesthetic experience, which, as a heightened state of consciousness, may be related to trance. If we can accept a neutral definition of art as "cultural forms that result from creative processes which manipulate movement, sound, words, or materials" (11, p. 20), then aesthetics can be approached as ways of thinking about such forms. Dance, as one of these cultural forms, is anthropologically relevant for the study of structure, social relations, ritual, and philosophy. However, the conclusion that can be drawn for the study of dance research and anthropology so far is similar to the conclusion of McLeod in her review of ethnomusicological research and anthropology (29, p.1 14), that the potential is great, but unless anthropologists take an interest in this area, the development of meaningful statements will be slow.


DANCE IN ANTHROPOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE 33

Much of McLeod's article on music is relevant for the study of dance, for in many ways dance is simply a part of music, to which it is integrally related. Like music, dance as a variety of human behavior is a highly patterned activity. Dance has a relatively small number of movement con- stituents organized into a relatively small number of larger pieces of movement or motifs. On the larger order of form, dance is organized into a small number of large forms (rather than into an infinite number of sentences and paragraphs, as in language), each of which may be repeated. Dance, like music, is a setpiece phenomenon, with a high level of redundancy [see (29, p. 99) for a comparison of music with language].

DANCE AND ANTHROPOLOGY BEFORE KURATH The first publication about dance that had any real relevance to anthropology was Curt Sachs's Eine Weltgeschichte des Tanzes, published in 1933 and translated into English in 1937 as World History of the Dance. This book has been widely used, and indeed is still used today, as a definitive anthropological study of dance. Although this book certainly has a place today in the study of the history of anthropological theory, it has no place in the study of dance in anthropological perspective. Its theoretical stance is derived from the German Kultiirkreis school of Schmidt and Graebner in which worldwide diffusion resulted in a form of unilineal evolution. But just as modern non-Western peoples do not represent earlier stages of Western cultural evolution, there is no reason to believe that non-Western dance represents earlier stages of Western dance. Yet some anthropologists find it possible to accept the latter without accepting the former [see (43) for a detailed review].

Much more important for the study of dance in anthropological perspective, although he did not really address himself to the subject, was Franz Boas, whose orientation offers scope for analyzing dance as culture rather than using dance data to fit theories and generalizations. Boas felt that man had a basic need for order and rhythm-a need which Boas used to help explain the universal existence of art. By refusing to accept sweeping generalizations that did not account for cultural variability, he laid a foundation for the possibility of examining dance and responses to it in terms of one's own culture rather than as a universal language. In spite of Boas and others, however, the idea that dance (or art) can be understood cross-culturally without understanding an individual dance tradition in terms of the cultural background of which it is a part, is not yet dead, especially among artists and dancers. Too often are creations of other cultures transformed into "primitive art," treated as part of an early stage of Western tradition, and subjected to Western concepts, categorization, structure, function, or aesthetics.


34 KAEPPLER

The influence of Boas and his insistence on the collection of data without attempting to fit them into generalized theories or a priori assumptions, is evident in the early dance work of Joann Kealiinohomoku. The investiga- tion of Boas's student, Herskovits, on the relationships between African music and the music of American blacks was continued in the study of dance by Herskovits's student Kealiinohomoku, "A Comparative Study of Dance as a Constellation of Motor Behaviors Among African and United States Negroes," which, although it was done in the 1960s, has only recently been published (19).

Starting from Boas's characterization that,

Dance is a universal human phenomenon, but because the human body has ultimate limitations in movement ability, and because there are relatively limited numbers of group formations which seem to occur to human beings, similar patterns of dance are found in widely separated and unrelated areas. Each culture, however, has a unique configuration of dance characteristics for movement patterns, styles, dynamics, value and raison d'etre of dance which are distinguished when comparing dances from one culture with those of another [quoted in Kealiinohomoku (19, p. 17)]

and building on the earlier musical analysis of Herskovits and Merriam, Kealiinohomoku concluded that not only is there a high degree of correlation between the dance motor behavior of African and United States blacks, but that an analysis of dance is a useful tool in anthropological research (p. 160). In addition, her study demonstrated that anthropological methods were useful in the study of dance. The influence of Boas, as mediated by Herskovits and Merriam, can be seen in her definition of dance:

Dance is a transient art of expression, performed in a given form and style by the human body moving in space. Dance occurs through purposefully selected and controlled rhyth- mic movements; the resulting phenomenon is recognized as dance both by the performer and the observing members of a given group (p. 25).

Kealiinohomoku's study also exemplifies some of Boas's ideas on the conservatism of certain aspects of culture. Her study,

presents evidence for the hypothesis that changes in function, form, meaning, context and material culture do not necessarily insure comparable changes in learned behavior, and that the dynamics of change do not necessarily include such things as posture, which may be outside the ken of conscious awareness. In other words, a person can learn, deliberately, to change the reasons for dancing, or the choice of who dances with whom, or what one wears, but it is very difficult for him to change his "body dialect" especially if he is not aware of it (19, p. 11).

Boas was concerned most of all with the collection of information, and he insisted that such things as dance must be looked at in the context of the society of which it is a part, rather than from the observer's point of



view-except as the latter pointed out the difference between other societies and our own. In an article on Kwakiutl dance he concluded that:

... song and dance accompany all the events of Kwakiutl life, and that they are an essential part in the culture of the people.... Although there are expert performers, everyone is obliged to take part in the singing and dancing, so that the separation between performance and audience that we find in our modem society does not occur in more primitive society such as that represented by the Kwakiutl Indians (2, p. 11).

Although a few derivative trends in the study of dance and culture can be traced to the influence of Boas, it is this empirical tradition that still per- vades most anthropological works that either focus on or give lip service to dance, whereas in "mainstream anthropology" modern studies in the Boasian tradition have not simply retained this character of a frozen slice of time. Much of Merriam's study, The Anthropology of Music (31), is directly relevant for the anthropological study of dance. A companion volume, The Anthropology of Dance (not yet available at this writing) by Anya Royce, which promises elaboration on historical, comparative, and symbolic approaches to dance, may be a first step toward modernization of the Boasian tradition in the field of dance.

GERTRUDE KURATH AND THE SCIENCE OF CHOREOLOGY Gertrude Kurath, a dancer, with degrees in art history, music, and drama, has been hailed as the parent of dance ethnology. Yet there is really very little that one can point to in her work that is anthropological from a theoretical point of view. She has collaborated with some of the leading anthropologists of her day, especially William Fenton, usually analyzing the content of dance and, in the Boasian tradition, relating dance in general terms to its cultural background. Kurath has summarized the methodology and procedure that she has used over the years (24), but unlike the test of the pudding being in the eating, the test of writing about dance is in the ability of someone else to read it. Kurath, writing (she hoped) for anthropologists, attempted to devise a way to make reading about dance palatable to an anthropologist. Her 1952 choreographic questionnaire was meant to answer the question, "What does a field worker record during the study of native dances?" (20, p. 53). Her advice that observation should be directed toward the ground plan, the style of body movement, and the broad structure of the dance, and her delineation of what could and should be included in these three general categories, was (and is) good advice. One wonders whether anyone actually took it.

In 1954 in a symposium on "Contributions of Music and Dance to Anthropological Theory" at the Central States Anthropological Society


36 KAEPPLER

meeting, Kurath set out her ideas on choreology, which she defined as "the science of movement patterns" (21, p. 177). This "science" involved the breaking down of "an observed pattern in order to perceive the structure" and the synthetic process of choreosocial relationships" (p. 178). Such descriptions and analyses could then be pressed into use for "attacks on space and time" involving "area study, intrusion and diffusion and problems of change" (p. 179). Although such statements appear to be outdated, even at that time, in terms of anthropological theory, in the sense that American diffusionist theory and area classifications had by then been outdated, Kurath was not looking for grandiose schemes. Kurath's "areas" in which she herself looks for intrusion, diffusion, and change, are small and circumscribed such as Tewa Pueblos, or Seneca Longhouses.

Kurath's "procedure" deals preeminently with the content of dance (24, pp. 36-37): 1. Field work-essential observation with descriptions and recording (not

necessarily with films and tapes). 2. "Laboratory study" to discern structure and style. 3. Explanation of styles and varieties with the help of a well-informed

native. 4. Graphic presentation. 5. Analysis into basic movements, motifs, and phrases. 6. Synthesis of formations, steps, music, and words into complete dances. 7. Conclusions, theories, and comparisons. As an example of "theory,"

Kurath cites her observations among the Tewa that "patterns for one sex occur in the most sacred dances, while increasing complexity and min- gling of the sexes comes with increasing secularization." As this same observation was made by Ljubica Jankovic among the Serbians, they "have a theory for further intercultural testing."

Although Kurath's "procedures" are simply a variation of anthropological research techniques, and her theory is more properly a hypothesis dealing with context sensitivity, she has at least demonstrated that anthropological techniques are relevant to the study of dance. Kurath's tech- nique, evolved in more than 20 years of research, mainly on American Indian dance but also on jazz and rock and roll, is to study the context of the dance by these procedures, to place the dance into its ceremonial context, and describe the cultural symbolism as reflected in choreographic patterns. Perhaps her most successful study and presentation was in her Music and Dance of the Tewa Pueblos (25). That this detailed comprehen- sive description of Tewa music and dance is actually readable can only be because of the skill of the author and her dedication. The descriptions, analyses, and notations presented could be as tedious for the reader as they certainly must have been for the writer. As I have noted elsewhere (10), this



study is a mine of information on similarities and differences in a specific cultural complex within a circumscribed area and will be as useful in the years to come for dance ethnologists as the works of Speck are for the ethnomusicologist.

In short, the contribution of Kurath to the study of dance ethnology, or as some would have it "ethnochoreology," is in her amassing of the same kind of empirical detail as did Fenton and Speck, with a smattering of the influence of the traditions of Boas and Kroeber. Much of the detail is so well presented that other researchers can use her information in additional ways and develop her ideas and pioneering work to further plateaus. One such development can be found in the study of dance of Taos Pueblo by Donald N. Brown (3). Familiarity with Kurath's work and notation of ground plan is evident in Brown's 1958 study, but he developed an aspect of dance that Kurath did not emphasize-dance classification from the point of view of the participants themselves. Rather than a classification from an outsider's point of view, Brown's presentation represents "A cultural reality for participants in the Taos cultural system" (p. 186). Although today such investi- gation might be considered de rigueur, 20 years ago classification according to native opinion was not at all usual, especially for dance. Brown's presentation of what is Taos and what is not is as relevant today as it was in 1958 and can stand proudly with similar work done since.

Kurath's contributions have also been the starting point for the work of Kealiinohomoku, who has used and developed some of the significant aspects of Kurath's procedures, namely her system of notation, her work on definitions, and her broad approach to the analysis of dance and its use in comparative studies. Kurath's system of glyph notation was intended to be a quick method for recording dance movements that could be used for analysis and for graphic presentation in published works. Once it has been mastered, which is not very difficult, Kurath's publications can be appreci- ated empathetically from the point of view of movement, as well as in their narrative and musical aspects. But, as Kurath notes, it is not meant for reconstruction. Figures 1 and 2 illustrate some of the steps used in Iroquois dance and how they have been combined with musical notation and stick figures in the graphic presentation of the Iroquois feather dance (23, pp. 94, 98). The system and its usefulness has been well demonstrated in Kurath's Tewa study (25). Kurath's notation system has been developed and elaborated by Kealiinohomoku in her study of motor behavior in the dance of African and United States blacks (19, pp. 28-36). Kealiinohomoku uses glyph notation to demonstrate similarities between African dance and the dance of blacks resident in the United States, and to show the differences between these dance traditions and those of Scotland/Ireland. Although the dances cannot be reconstructed, the system adequately demonstrates similarities and differences in an easily understandable form.


38 KAEPPLER

Stomp Type Fish Dance Type

LINE OF DIRECTION LINE OF DIRECTION

L, Stamp right foot Walk forward left foot _| A'

Flex kcnee Walk forward right foot L

J. Left foot step to right

Flex knee Torso erect, shoulder level B

L_ - Right foot drag to right Flex knees slightly

_ > Flex kcnee Both feet turn in, heel Flex knee ~~~accent

J Left foot shuffle back Flex knees slightly

Flex knee Both feet turned out, (

L.. Right foot shuffle back right foot in back / Flex knees slightly )

Torso erect, shoulders level Both feet turn in, heel 3 4 accent / Flex krnee Flex knees slightly

Left foot shuffle forward, to Bohfetunu,

right heel |Both feet turn out, right heel ~~~~right in front

Torso slightly forward bent, right shoulder forward I A and down Weight on left foot _

Flex knee forward Left foot forward pat

Right foot shuffle forward Weight on right foot

Right foot forward pat L

Man face center of circle

Woman face center of m circle Couple crossover

ML Male leader face ahead Woman Woman t .L. Man face ahead 4 Female leader face ahead 6!;> Woman face ahead

LEFT RIGHT LEFT RIGHT

Figure I Stomp and fish dance type steps.



Dance I. 3. do

4 9Y~~~~~~~~~~4.1.i

f*ns , L

.3~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~.j U ~~L.

C' "W LZ ~ t .gf

7.

,, Q~~~~~~. 4 % >:

r- J r - FL

p a

Figure 2 Feather dance.

Both figures reprinted by permission of the Smithsonian Institution Press from Iroquois Music and Dance.: Ceremonial Arts of Two Seneca Longhouses, G. P. Kurath, Part 1, Figures 16 and 20 in the Bureau of Ethnology Bulletin 187. Washington DC: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1964.


40 KAEPPLER

The system is particularly useful for those who are nonliterate in dance notation, that is, most anthropologists and even most dancers. Kurath's system, however, is confusing to the dance notation reader, because Kurath has borrowed symbols and terminology from Labanotation, but has reorga- nized the writing staff so that constant reorientation is necessary. Labanota- tion (or Kinetography Laban as it is known in Europe), an international system for notating dance similar to music notation, has been available since 1928. In contrast to the study of phonetic notation, however, kinetic notation has not been considered of sufficient importance to be studied by many anthropologists. Labanotation is not difficult to learn to read (it is more difficult to learn to write) and the terminology is as useful as a special terminology is to the study of social organization, for it can be applied to any human movements, not only to dance. When dealing with the content of dance, certainly the first prerequisite should be a tool for notating it.2 The notation, however, should never be considered an end in itself, but only as a tool for analysis. Although Labanotation was developed to record pure movement rather than style (that is, it is a kinetic notation), it can be adapted in the study of emic grids in a way similar to adapting phonetic notation into phonemic grids (8). Kurath used Labanotation in her study of the Dances ofAnahuac (26), but quickly abandoned it for the sake of the nonliterate.

Neither glyph notation nor Labanotation even considers the problem of the use of energy which, although this may not be as readily observable as the movement per se, is important in dance training, aesthetic philosophy, and the deep structure of the culture concerned. "Effort-shape" notation has been developed to cope in part with this problem and will be discussed below. Recording of dance content may be necessary before meaningful statements can be made about context. Kurath's early attempts in recording and publishing dance content are instructive to analyze in terms of their successes and failures in communication with anthropologists.

Kurath's attempt to deal with definitional problems appears to be aimed primarily toward eliciting the sympathy of anthropologists to the study of dance and giving "choreological tips" for what to look for when observing dance and how to describe it. Kurath's use of the term "ethnic dance" as the subject matter of scientific inquiry in the study of ethnochoreology was later rethought, and Kurath attempted to cope with all those problem terms such as folk dance, ethnic dance, ethnologic dance, theatrical dance, commercial dance, ballet, court dance, and art dance (22, p. 235). Kealiinohomoku elaborated the arguments presented in two articles "An

2Two other notation systems are also useful. Benesh notation was originally devised for notating ballet but is applicable to other dance forms. Eshkol, based on the measurement of angles, is applicable to studies using computers.



Anthropologist Looks at Ballet as a Form of Ethnic Dance" (14) and "Folk Dance" (17), both of which conclude that trying to cut dance into pieces and categorize it hinders our understanding of the nature of dance and its varied functions in varied societies.

Following Kurath's introductory instructions for gathering dance data, Kealiinohomoku developed a checklist in an effort to obtain information for comparison. After several reworkings she published her "Dance Data Guide" (16), an 11-page checklist of material traits associated with dance and "dance compendium questions." This guide can serve as a reminder to all who might witness a dance performance, whether in the field or on the stage, and would be extremely useful for cross-cultural research if anyone would use it. By 1972, 15 years after its first version, Kealiinohomoku states that it had been "notably unsuccessful," and apparently other similar guides have met the same fate. Evidently the preparation and distribution of guides has made little impact on the motivation for recording or analyzing dance.

A dislike of the term "dance ethnology" by Kealiinohomoku is probably owing to her early exposure to Kurath's "science of choreology" and to her own work on body postures as learned behavior, which is usually not thought to be the domain of ethnographers. The use of the term "choreology" by Kurath, Kealiinohomoku, and later by Royce (34), to mean "the study of dance" would seem anthropologically unfortunate because it appears to put the emphasis on dance content rather than on the contextual elements of social relations and the philosophical associations with a culture's deep structure and aesthetics. Although I would have to agree with Kurath, Kealiinohomoku, and Royce that "the subject of choreology is the dance" (34, p. 49), I would venture further to suggest that the potential contribution of dance in anthropological perspective is what dance can tell us about society and the human behavior that has generated diverse cultural systems.

MODERN TRENDS It was not until the mid-1960s that dance in anthropological perspective took its next step. A number of new people appeared upon the scene who were apparently little influenced by Sachs, Boas, Kurath, or anyone who had dealt with the phenomenon of dance before them. Williams, Snyder, Singer, Royce, Kaeppler, and Hanna, along with Kealiinohomoku, are juxtaposed across an impassable barrier to Lomax. Choreometrics-Dance as a Measure of Culture Alan Lomax, apparently a man of more grandiose schemes than even Curt Sachs, set out to amass data for an "evolutionary taxonomy of culture." His data so far are based primarily on song styles and dance styles, with lan-


42 KAEPPLER

guage and textual analysis to come. Using available filmed resources, Lomax and his assistants compared "dance to everyday movement in order to verify the hypothesis that danced movement is patterned reinforcement of the habitual movement patterns of each culture or culture area" (27, p. xv).

One of the "verifications" of this hypothesis dealing with the association of work and dance comes from the extensive film footage by Allison Ja- blonko shot among the Maring of New Guinea in 1963-64. After returning from the field with her films and discussions with Lomax and Bartenieff, Jablonko analyzed her film using two choreometric rating parameters, body part use and trace form complexity. Asking the questions "What formations occur in dance and daily life?" and "What pathways are traced by movements of these formations?" (7, p. 75), Jablonko made a "frame oriented" film analysis in order to scrutinize the dynamic links between frames (p. 68). Although she concluded that her study confirmed Lomax's contention that "dance is a formalized and repetitious use of movement patterns that are frequent and important in the everyday life of the Maring" (p. 117), she goes on to tell us how dance is differentiated from everyday movement (pp. 118-20). My reading of her evidence, however, would tempt me to conclude that dance movements among the Maring are not based on movements of everyday life, but rather are elaborated forms of movements usually used to project hostility and especially movements used in warfare. In addition, her thesis appears to demonstrate that dance among the Maring is a surface manifestation of a cultural deep structure based on equivalence, which is instructive to contrast with the very different deep structure manifested by dance in Tonga (13).

A second hypothesis was also boldly stated by Lomax, "Already we know that dance style varies in a regular way in terms of the level of complexity and the type of subsistence activity of the culture which supports it" (27, p. xv). To say nothing of the inadequate data bases that are being compared -cross-cultural data from the Ethnographic Atlas (Murdock, 1962-67) and 200 films to cover the world (only 50 of which were viewed in detail)-the method of looking for analogies and then finding cultures that verify the analogies (with little reference to those that do not) seems a bit question- able.

A distaste for grandiose schemes aside, the same two problems that reduce the validity of the musical part of Lomax's study (29, p. 109) are equally applicable to the study of dance styles. First, each culture is viewed as having only one dance style and a master choreometric profile is prepared. Imagine trying to code the waltz, square dancing, rock and roll, and ballet from the United States into one profile, or even worse, to use only one of these to characterize the dance style of the United States. Yet the



same kind of dance complexity can (and does) exist in other parts of the world where the social and diffusion information is not so well known. Random films cannot give quantifiable information. Second, the analysis is subjectively done from the analyst's point of view. Much of the analysis is based on the effort-shape aspects of Laban analysis, yet many elements that go into this analysis cannot be understood from looking at a two-dimensional film. In addition, the distinctive features that are said to characterize "style," used in the choreometrics profiles are not necessarily the kinds of components that most dance anthropologists would use to characterize "style."

Lomax concludes one of his sections with the following statement: "As with song style, the first contribution of dance analysis is to point to histori- cally significant families of movements. Now we turn to individual parameters of the choreometric systems to see whether they arrange dance styles in an evolutionary sequence" (27, p.235). Can it be an incarnation of Sachs at the computer?3

If we forget about the theoretical aspects of choreometrics, especially the hypothesized correlation between dance style and subsistence activity, there are positive aspects of the study. For example, the delineation and definition of elements of movement that can be compared, or even used for description, are contributions to the comparative study of dance content. Using effort-shape concepts, such components as type of transition, dimensional- ity of movement path, body attitude, and the use of the trunk in one or two units, have been brought to the attention of many. It is likely that many of the concepts will be useful for circumscribed study of dance movements within a society or between closely related ones. Irmgard Bartenieff, who was responsible for much of the delineation of movement parameters and coding, has now moved on to "field work" where these parameters can be seen in three dimensions and in cultural context. Others, such as Judy Van Zile, have combined effort-shape methods and concepts with electromyog- raphy in order to describe and analyze the use of energy as a distinguishing element of dance form (40).

Linguistic Analogies in the Study of Dance Anthropology students of the mid-1960s were exposed to the methodologi- cal and theoretical techniques widely used in linguistics and increasingly used in the so-called "new ethnography." Field work during the 1960s attempted to apply these techniques to a number of cultural forms such as social structure, color categories, and dance. One such study which used "etic/emic" distinctions based on analogies with structural linguistics was

3For other reviews of choreometrics see Kealiinohomoku (18) and Williams (41).


44 KAEPPLER

carried out in Tonga (8, 9). Although it has been said that this study used the terminology, assumptions, and framework of Birdwhistell's kinesics (30, p. 20; 38, p. 381), even a cursory reading of Birdwhistell (1) and Kaeppler will show that their aims, assumptions, and techniques have little overlap. Whereas Birdwhistell's kinesics is meant to study "body motion as related to the nonverbal aspects of interpersonal communication" (1, p. 3), Kaep- pler's kinemic/morphokinemic study was an attempt to elicit an inventory of small pieces of movement, kinemes (with the allokine variants), and their combinations into morphokines. The analogy with phonemes and mor- phemes was not simply fortuitous, because the system was derived by contrastic analysis in the field based on linguistic analysis as set out by Kenneth Pike (32).4 Further analogies with language, such as lexemes or units of meaning, were not found to be useful in the analysis of dance structure. Instead, morphokines (which have meaning as movement but do not have lexical meaning) were found to be organized into a relatively small number of motifs or dance phrases, which, when ordered (or choreo- graphed) chronologically, form dances.

Similar studies of other Polynesian dance traditions show similarities and differences-in kinemic inventory, in ways in which kinemes are combined into morphokines and used in motifs, and in how they are ordered into dances. These similarities, and differences, are manifested in the various dance styles found in Polynesia.

Independently, a similar methodology was being developed in Eastern Europe (33). Here, too, the researchers found that methods derived from structural linguistics were useful only at the lower levels. Although the terminology is different, the component levels derived from a structural analysis of Eastern Europeans analyzing their own dances from their own (emic) point of view, are remarkably similar to Kaeppler's. The smallest pieces of movement in the Eastern European study were called "elements or dansemes" which were combined into "cells" and organized into larger motives, phrases, stanzas, and sections (33, p. 138; also personal communication)-the latter two depending on the dance genre-levels also found appropriate by Kaeppler in analyzing larger forms. Earlier work in Eastern Europe, especially that of Gyorgy Martin on Hungarian dance, also analyzed movement into basic elements and their combinations into motifs and larger forms (28).

An entirely different use of linguistic analogies in the study of dance comes from the use of concepts found useful in transformational grammar. The two studies (with which I am familiar) that attempt to use this generative device are those of Williams and Singer-as different from each other

4A system and a method of elicitation of which even Marvin Harris might approve (5).



as they are from etic/emic analysis. Drid Williams, influenced by Ardener and Crick, as well as borrowing from Chomsky, insists that dance (and indeed anthropology) is a "language based, rather than a behavioural science" (42, p. 16). In a set of papers called "Deep Structures of the Dance," Williams attempts to provide "an analytical framework for exam- ing human action signs ... which sets out rules for transformational generative grammars for dance idioms" and "deals with the conceptual space of the dance, i.e. the larger context of the transformational, syntagmatic rules" (42, p. 123). Williams proposes "seven basic transformational rules for sequential realization in space" which she claims "are universal transformational rules which underlie any dance or ritual idiom anywhere in the world" (p. 128). Whether or not one agrees that these are universal rules or even that they are useful, Williams has opened another door to potential understanding of dance and society through analytical techniques.

Alice Singer, more closely following Chomsky and the linguistic analyses of poetic meter by Jakobson, Halle, and Keyser, attempts to develop a theory of metrics that will contribute toward a generative grammar of the metrical structure of dance (38). Singer proposes "that dance forms are generated by the encoding of abstract metrical patterns into an organized sequence of movements" (p. 383) and suggests "some possible correspon- dence rules which relate dance movements to the abstract metrical patterns" (p. 390). Like many first statements on a subject, Singer's analysis raises more questions than it answers. Nevertheless, her study will surely be influential in further applications of linguistic analysis-especially in the development of generative statements, and perhaps eventually even grammars.

DANCE-A REFLECTION OF CULTURE OR PART OF A HOLISTIC DISCIPLINE The relationship between dance and the sociocultural system in which it is embedded remains a central concern to anthropologists who have dealt with this cultural form-a form that results from creative processes which manipulate human bodies in time and space. Much of the anthropologically relevant work on dance that has been published to date views dance as a reflection of culture, that is, that dance is somehow separable from other parts of culture and of which it can be considered a mirror. For example, studies of the symbolic aspects of dance by Snyder (39) and Hieb (6), and the study by Kealiinohomoku of Hopi dance as a microcosm of Hopi culture (15), take this stance. Although this view is perfectly acceptable both from the viewpoints of dance and of anthropology, it tends to mask the integral association of this cultural form with others.


46 KAEPPLER

It is commonplace to separate dance, along with music, from other forms of human behavior (29, p. 107), and label it "art." Once it has been so separated it is often felt that it need not be dealt with. This ethnocentric view does not take into consideration the possibility that dance may not be "art" (whatever that is) to people of the culture concerned, or that there may not even be a cultural category comparable to what Westerners call "dance." Much social or religious ritual manipulates human bodies in space and time. But is the cultural manipulation of bodies among the Maring or Kaluli of New Guinea, for example, at all comparable to the Tongan manipulation of bodies in a formal lakalaka? Is participation in rock and roll in any way comparable to watching ballet? Indeed, should "dances of participation" and "dances of presentation" be classed as the same phenomenon either in our own or other cultures, let alone cross-culturally? Are cultural forms performed for the gods considered at all in the same categories as cultural forms performed for a human audience, performed as a social activity, or even as a "social duty"? For example, there is little anthropological reason for classing together the Japanese cultural form called mikagura performed in Shinto shrines, the cultural form called buyo performed within (or separated from) a Kabuki drama, and the cultural form commonly know as bon, performed to honor the dead. The only logical reason I can see for catego- rizing them together is that from an outsider's point of view all three cultural forms use the body in ways that to Westerners would be considered dance. But from a cultural point of view either of movement or activity there is little reason to class them together. Indeed, as far as I have been able to discover, there is no Japanese word that will class these three cultural forms together that will not also include much of what from a Western point of view would not be considered "dance."

Mikagura, 5 performed by Shinto priestesses, is basically bilaterally sym- metrical. The performer's foot and leg movements are straight forward much like walking (especially the walking of priests in procession). When moving from standing to sitting positions, the knee is often placed at a right angle. The facing is straight on forward, back, or to the side. Physically, the movements are not subtle or difficult to do and the movement flow is slow and continuous. Buyo, performed by an individual after long training in a specific "school" (each of which has its own subtle individualized movement traditions), is seldom bilaterally symmetical. The directional movements are basically diagonal, the stage facing is seldom straight on, the body stance incorporates wide angles at knees and hip joint. The shoulders are often in a different plane than other body parts and the head is moved in

5This discussion is based on the movements of a female dancer-including female imperson- ators.



a series of three-first to one side and then twice to the other side. The feet are toed inward and there are frequent poses during which no body part is moving. Bon, performed by anyone, moves in a circular pattern, knees are lifted upward and forward, the body is often bent forward from the hips and there is considerable movement of the hands and wrists. These three cultural forms are not simply genres, as Tonga lakalaka, or ma'ulu'ulu are two different performing genres, they are simply the movement dimension of three entirely different activities. If outsiders want to class them together by some sort of Western criteria that is one thing, but anthropologically they are not even part of the same activity systems. They are not "art" or "reflection," and anthropologically they should be looked at as the movement dimensions of separate activities. And in order to understand that activity, the movement dimension must be recognized as an integral part, described, analyzed, and used in formulations about the form, function, meaning of the activity, as well as in constructs about cultural philosophy and deep structure.

As with music (29), it is bewildering that it is almost impossible to define dance as something apart from other structured movement systems. Maring warfare uses the same movements as Maring dance, but is is not considered dance. The Mikagura is "danced," yet is it dance? Trance or other altered states of consciousness are often associated with structured movement systems, yet they usually are not dance. If only native categories can define what is dance in a particular society, then how can it be universal? The Tasaday of the Philippines do not have this cultural form, so it cannot even be universal from an outsider's point of view. The concept of "dance" may actually be masking the importance and usefulness of analyzing human movement systems.

Can we consider social change or aesthetics in Western society without consideration of ballet, modem dance, and rock and roll? Are they cultural "reflections" or simply part of different activity systems? How are they related to social movements or to other concerns more commonly dealt with by anthropologists? But in spite of this rather gloomy picture, there are promises of things to come. Kealiinohomoku has talked about the "non- art" of dance. Hanna claims "that dance is linked to the life of a society by affecting cultural patterns, tension management, goal attainment, adap- tation, and integration" (4, p. 96). Royce has investigated the social and political aspects of dance in plural societies (36) and dance as an indicator of social class and identity (35). Kaeppler has examined dance as an integral part of social structure (12) and as a surface manifestation of deep structure (13). Others have recognized the importance of dance in ritual, and studies in progress on the ethnography of performance and on event analysis also promise new insights. Probably the best anthropological study of dance so


48 KAEPPLER

far is that of Schieffelen among the Kaluli of New Guinea (37), where dance in its cultural context becomes a "cultural scenario"-an analysis that will not fit with Western concepts of dance. We must set our sights as high (or as deep) in order to eventually attain philosophical understanding, from diverse cultural points of view, of the various activities and cultural forms that manipulate human bodies in time and space.

Literature Cited 1. Birdwhistell, R. L. 1952. Introduction

to Kinesics. Louisville Univ. Press 2. Boas, F. 1944. Dance and music in the

life of the northwest coast Indians of North America. In The Function of Dance in Human Society. New York: Boas School

3. Brown, D. N. 1976. The dance of Taos Pueblo. In Reflections and Perspectives on Two Anthropological Studies of Dance. CORD Res. Ann. 7:181-272

4. Hanna, J. L. 1972. Dance, odyssey, and theory. In New Dimensions in Dance Research: Anthropology and Dance- The American Indian. CORD Res. Ann. 6:85-98

5. Harris, M. 1976. History and signifi- cance of the emic/etic distinction. Ann. Rev. AnthropoL 5:329-50

6. Hieb, L. A. 1972. Rhythms of signifi- cance: Towards a symbolic analysis of dance in ritual. In New Dimensions in Dance Research: Anthropology and Dance-The American Indian. CORD Res. Ann. 6:225-32

7. Jablonko, A. P. 1968. Dance and daily activities among the Maring of New Guinea: A cinematographic analysis oj body movement style. PhD thesis. Co- lumbia Univ., New York, NY

8. Kaeppler, A. L. 1967. The Structure oj Tongan Dance. PhD thesis. Univ. Ha- waii, Honolulu, Hi.

9. Kaeppler, A. L. 1972. Method and theory in analyzing dance structure with an analysis of Tongan dance. Eth- nomusicology 16(2): 173-217

10. Kaeppler, A. L. 1973. Review of Music and Dance of the Tewa Pueblo, by G. P. Kurath & A. Garcia. Am. Anthropol. 75(4): 1065-66

11. Kaeppler, A. L. 1976. "Art" and "Dance." In Encyclopedia of An- thropology, ed. D. E. Hunter, P. Whit- ten. New York: Harper & Row

12. Kaeppler, A. L. 1976. Dance in Tonga: The communication of social values through an artistic medium. In Com- munication in the Pacific, ed. D.

Lerner, J. Richstad, pp. 15-22. Honolulu: East-West Commun. Inst.

13. Kaeppler, A. L. 1978. Melody, drone, and decoration: Underlying structures and surface manifestations in Tongan art and society. In Arts, Artisans and Societies, ed. J. V. S. Megaw. London: Duckworth. In press

14. Kealiinohomoku, J. W. 1969/1970. An anthropologist looks at ballet as a form of ethnic dance. Impulse: 24-33

15. Kealiinohomoku, J. W. 1972. Dance culture as a microcosm of holistic culture. In New Directions in Dance Re- search. Anthropology and Dance-The American Indian. CORD Res. Ann. 7:99-112

16. Kealiinohomoku, J. W. 1972. Field guides. In New Directions in Dance Re- search: Anthropology and Dance-The American Indian. CORD Res. Ann. 6:245-60

17. Kealiinohomoku, J. W. 1972. Folk dance. In Folklore and Folklife. An In- troduction, ed. R. M. Dorson, pp. 381- 404. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press

18. Kealiinohomoku, J. W. 1974. Caveat on causes and correlations. CORD News 6(2):20-24

19. Kealiinohomoku, J. W. 1976. A comparative study of dance as a constellation of motor behaviors among African and United States negroes. In Reflec- tions and Perspectives on Two Anthropo- logical Studies of Dance. CORD Res. Ann. 7:1-179

20. Kurath, G. P. 1952. A choreographic questionnaire. Midwest Folklore 2(1): 53-55

21. Kurath, G. P. 1956. Choreology and anthropology. Am. Anthropol. 58: 177-79

22. Kurath, G. P. 1960. Panorama of dance ethnology. Curr. Anthropol. 1(3): 233-54

23. Kurath, G. P. 1964. Iroquois Music and Dance: Ceremonial Arts of Two Seneca Longhouses. Bur. Am. Ethnol. Bull. 187



24. Kurath, G. P. 1972. Research methods and background of Gertrude Kurath. In New Dimensions in Dance Research: Anthropology and Dance-The Ameri- can Indian. CORD Res. Ann. 6:35-43

25. Kurath, G. P., Garcia, A. 1970. Music and Dance of the Tewa Pueblos. Santa Fe: Mus. New Mexico Press

26. Kurath, G.P., Marti, S. 1964. Dances of Andhuac. Chicago: Aldine

27. Lomax, A. 1968. Folk Song Style and Culture. Am. Assoc. Adv. Sci.

28. Martin, G., Pesovar, E. 1961. A structural analysis of the Hungarian folk dance. Acta Ethnogr. Acad. Sci. Hung. 10(1-2)

29. McLeod, N. 1974. Ethnomusicological research and anthropology. Ann. Rev. AnthropoL 3:99-115

30. Merriam, A. P. 1972. Anthropology and the dance. In New Dimensions in Dance Research: Anthropology and Dance-The American Indian. CORD Res. Ann. 6:9-27

31. Merriam, A. P. 1964. The Anthropology of Music. Evanston: Northwestern Univ. Press

32. Pike, K. L. 1967. Language in Relation to a Unified Theory of the Structures of Human Behavior. The Hague: Mouton

33. Proca-Ciortea, V. 1971. Kinetic language and vocabulary. Yearbook of the International Folk Music Council for 1970, pp. 133-41

34. Royce, A. P. 1972. Coreology today: A review of the field. In New Dimensions in Dance Research: Anthropology and

Dance-The American Indian. CORD Res. Ann. 6:47-84

35. Royce, A. P. 1972. Dance as an indicator of social class and identity in Juchi- tan, Oaxaca. In New Dimensions in Dance Research: Anthropology and Dance-The American Indian. CORD Res. Ann. 6:285-97

36. Royce, A. P. 1973. Social and political aspects of dance performance in plural societies. Presented at Ann. Meet. Am. Anthropol. Assoc.

37. Schieffelin, E. L. 1976. The Sorrow of the Lonely and the Burning of the Danc- ers. New York: St. Martin's

38. Singer, A. 1974. The metrical structure of Macedonian dance. Ethnomusicology 18(3):379-404

39. Snyder, A. F. 1972. The dance symbol. In New Dimensions in Dance Research: Anthropology and Dance-The Ameri- can Indian. CORD Res. Ann. 6:213-24

40. Van Zile, J. 1977. Energy use: An important stylistic element in dance. In Asian and Pacific Dance. CORD Res. Ann. 8:85-96

41. Williams, D. 1974. Review of choreometrics. CORD News 6(2):25-29

42. Williams, D. 1976/1977. Deep structures of the dance. J. Hum. Movement Stud. 2:123-44

43. Youngerman, S. 1974. Curt Sachs and his heritage: A critical review of World History of the Dance with a survey of recent studies that perpetuate his ideas. CORD News 6(2):6-19


Article Contentsp. 31p. 32p. 33p. 34p. 35p. 36p. 37p. 38p. 39p. 40p. 41p. 42p. 43p. 44p. 45p. 46p. 47p. 48p. 49

Issue Table of ContentsAnnual Review of Anthropology, Vol. 7 (1978), pp. i-x+1-568Front Matter [pp. i-viii]An Anthropologist's Apprenticeship [pp. x+1-30]Dance in Anthropological Perspective [pp. 31-49]Cognition as a Residual Category in Anthropology [pp. 51-69]Archaeology of the Great Basin [pp. 71-87]Apes and Language [pp. 89-112]Oral Literature [pp. 113-136]Historical Demography as Population Ecology [pp. 137-173]Political Anthropology: Manipulative Strategies [pp. 175-194]African Religious Movements [pp. 195-234]Community Development and Cultural Change in Latin America [pp. 235-261]New Guinea: Ecology, Society, and Culture [pp. 263-291]Archaeology in Oceania [pp. 293-319]The Social Organization of Behavior: Interactional Approaches [pp. 321-345]Anthropological Economics: The Question of Distribution [pp. 347-377]Ethnicity: Problem and Focus in Anthropology [pp. 379-403]Ethnographic Film: Failure and Promise [pp. 405-425]Lexical Universals [pp. 427-451]Context in Child Language [pp. 453-482]The Retreat From Migrationism [pp. 483-532]Author Index [pp. 533-542]Subject Index [pp. 543-563]Cumulative Indexes: Volumes 3-7 [pp. 564-568]

Documents

Dance in Anthropological Perspective