Some Anthropological and Sociological Perspectives
The previous discussion explored some of the ways in which embodiment might be understood in the context of different approaches to the appreciation of (western) theatre dance. Elements of this discussion may well be illuminated by a consideration of some anthropological and sociological perspectives on the body and embodiment. At the risk of even further generalising some very complex philosophical arguments, I will first attempt to summarise some key points of the previous discussion before introducing some relevant aspects of a range of writings of anthropologists and sociologists and consider their impact on the understanding of what is embodied in dance. In particular, in relation to the intertextual analysis of dance, I will discuss the use of some anthropological and sociological texts to support interpretations that draw on considerations of social factors. Further, I will consider the dualist approaches to body:mind, technique:expression, form:content that I touched on in the previous chapter to be symptomatic of a conceptual framework that, dominating the development of modern Europe, has had an impact on the manner in which embodiment is experienced and the body is understood in dance.
3.1 ‘Embodiment’ and the Aesthetic Appreciation of (Western) Theatre Dance
In early twentieth century western aesthetics there was a marked opposition between expressionist and formalist viewpoints, that is, between those that emphasised what the artwork expressed and those that viewed content as irrelevant to aesthetic concerns that were focussed on ‘formal’ properties. In both ‘traditional’ aesthetic approaches, the aesthetic qualities of a work of art, formal or expressive, were viewed as qualities of the work rather than their being dependent on the point of view of the percipient. Or rather, only the viewer with the appropriate sensitivity could appreciate the aesthetic qualities of a work of art correctly. Discussions of traditional aesthetics predate more contemporary discussion of embodiment. However, in some later developments of these traditions in relation to dance, aesthetic qualities may be viewed as embodied. In particular, some uses of ‘embodiment’ seem to echo an expressionist emphasis, in that expressive qualities may be viewed as embodied properties of a dance. The British philosopher David Best has suggested how a popular form of expressionism in dance, which views physical movement as expressing feeling, reveals a dualist attitude to mind and body. For Best, the use of the term ‘embody’ in the context of expression may only serve to obscure this underlying dualism. Further he posits the importance of interpretation, or ‘seeing as’ in the perception of expression (Best, 1974, 188).
Debates over the importance of form or content
were, as the twentieth century reached its later decades, perhaps
overshadowed by the development of phenomenological and semiotic approaches
to dance, each emanating from academic disciplines that have often
been viewed as antithetical. Phenomenological approaches to dance
have been developed by
In contrast to the phenomenological emphasis
on the ‘lived’ experience’ of dance, in semiotic approaches to dance
as 'read', questions of interpretation and significance are central.
In simple (and overly oppositional) terms, semiotic approaches may
be viewed as structuralist or poststructuralist. In the former, a
dance performance may be viewed as a structural field of signs (here
the term is used differently to its use in phenomenology) that are
comprehended in relation to specific cultural (or sub cultural) contexts.
These may include the choreographic traditions informing dances and
the expectations and conventions surrounding any specific performance.
In theory, at least, the significance of the dance performance may
be elucidated through a synchronic, structural analysis which might
refer to cultural norms as embodied in the movement and understood
from the perspective of a specific cultural location. Hence in Drid
Williams’ (1995) ‘semasiological’ analysis, similar actions of bowing
are not only understood as slightly different in terms of whether
the legs are turned out or how deeply the body bends: depending on
whether they are performed within the ballet Checkmate (1937), the celebration of Mass or in
the Chinese exercise regime of Tai Chi Chuan, the actions also differ
in relation to their meaning as constructed within different structural
systems of signification. In contrast, poststructuralist approaches,
and in particular intertextual analysis of dance in which the dance
is viewed as a ‘text’, open up the potential for multiple interpretations
and the role of the percipient in (co-)creating the work. As interpreted
Which texts are focussed on and why?
If what is perceived to be embodied in the dance is one ‘text’ alongside others, is it simply a matter of preference how much consideration is given to such ‘texts’?
In order to explore these questions further it is important to consider what may be perceived to be embodied in a dance from a sociological and anthropological perspective. To this end it is necessary to consider how the physical grounding of human experience has been theorised in these disciplines.
3.2 ‘Embodiment’ in Sociology and Anthropology
The corporeal nature of human existence became
a popular topic for sociologists towards the last quarter of the twentieth
century. According to the sociologist Bryan Turner, an earlier more
abstract approach to people as ‘social agents’ may be in part due
to ‘the spectre of social Darwinism, biological reductionism or socio-biology’
(Turner, 1984,1) which made it initially difficult for sociologists
in general to embrace specific interests in the body.
As the anthropologist and pop culturalist Ted Polhemus observed in the late 1970s, the diverse sociological, semiotic, linguistic and phenomenological approaches found in different anthropological studies of the body made, and still make, it difficult to contemplate a ‘unified anthropology of the body’ (Polhemus, 1978, 27). It is not simply the problem of understanding the different approaches, but rather that in each may be found conflicting attitudes to ontological questions in relation to the nature of body, mind, meaning, self, society and the relationships between them.
Within the field of sociology, a particularly significant conflict in terms of theory, which has implications for the understanding of ‘embodiment’, is the relationship between social structures and individual agency. In both functionalism and structuralism emphasis is placed on systems and structures which tend to constrain individuals who are viewed as fitting into prescribed roles. In contrast humanist and hermeneutic approaches to the social world emphasise the significance of individual actions unfettered by the constraints of structure. Thus what is embodied may be viewed as predominantly either the product of social forces or the result of an individual’s actions. However, in the structuration theory of Anthony Giddens (as cited in Cassell, 1993, 88-96) and in Bourdieu’s theory of habitus and field (discussed below) can be seen attempts to provide theoretically for an understanding of human agency as dialectically related to society. For Giddens, as cited in Cassell (1993, 89), the study of society focuses on ‘neither the experience of the individual actor, nor the existence of any form of societal totality but social practices ordered across space and time’. Such practices are ‘recursive’ in that while they are not brought into being by ‘social actors’ they are continually recreated by them. Structuration theory may allow for a level of human agency in which norms, while not deterministic, may be embodied. However, it may be felt that the discussion of abstract ‘social actors’ still seems to rely on a less than fully fleshed out view of human agency (Schilling, 1996). Pierre Bourdieu’s theory of the ‘habitus’ is more closely related to bodily experience through what he describes as the ‘bodily hexis’ and it is this theory that will be explored more thoroughly in an account of embodiment in later twentieth century sociology.
Since sometimes a writer’s stance in relation
to such matters is open to debate (as will be seen in relation to
the discussion of
3.3 Early and Mid Twentieth Century Anthropological and Sociological Approaches to the Body/Embodiment
...is denied by socially instilled self control from spontaneously touching what he desires, loves or hates. The whole moulding of his gestures - no matter how its pattern may differ among western nations with regard to particulars is decisively influenced by this necessity.
Erving Goffman, writing in the late 1950s,
highlighted the non verbal, behavioural aspects of social interactions
and the element of performance involved in self presentation: individuals
in institutional settings are confronted with expectations of a given
‘social front’ to a point at which fulfilling the expectations of
performing their perceived role may conflict with the actions necessary
to complete relevant tasks. Goffman (1969) brought into focus
not only the social context of behaviour but the expertise with which
people learn to read behaviour and attempt to adapt their own, in
front of others, to give the right impression. It is open to debate
whether Goffman was, as Schilling (1993) suggests, presenting behaviour
as socially constructed and revealing of a dualistic approach to body:mind.
Mary Douglas, writing at the very end of the
1960s, attempted to unify different anthropological approaches in
her discussion of ‘natural systems of symbolizing’ that use the body
as a readily available medium of expression (Douglas, 1973 ).
Drawing on a structuralist approach to the formulation of symbolic
systems, Douglas distinguishes between cross cultural variations in
body symbolism and the potential for correlations in the relationships
between ‘the character of the symbolic system and that of the social
system’ that she argues are a feature of a wide range of human societies
(1973 , 12). Although
According to the rule of distance from physiological origin (or the purity rule) the more the social situation exerts pressure on persons involved in it, the more the social demand for conformity tends to be expressed by a demand for physical control. Bodily processes are more ignored and more firmly set outside the social discourse, the more the latter is important.
Whilst the work of those cited above pointed to different aspects of the relationships between psychology, physiology, and society, a number of American anthropologists studied the body in relation to communication, using models adapted from linguistics and communication. For instance, Ray Birdwhistell’s kinesics (1971) offers tools for the analysis of movement looking at how individual action, or ‘kines’, are combined and structured, while Edward Hall’s ‘proxemics’(1959) analyses differences in spatial structuring. Helen Thomas suggests that their theories have perhaps not been more generally adopted due to their being predicated on academic traditions (American structural linguistics, communication theory and behaviourism) that came in for criticism for their positivist bias (Thomas, 2003, 25). However, by studying the cultural differences in both body actions and their interpretation, their works did much to question assumptions about ‘body language’ being universally communicative. This made it more difficult to sustain a point of view in which dance is universally expressive except where the aesthetic realm is viewed as in some way transcending more everyday channels of communication.
For other anthropologists, the focus seems to have remained on the interplay of the social and physical. Certainly this was the subject of a conference of anthropologists in the late 1970s. In the preface to the collection of conference papers John Blacking sums up one of the conference’s aims as being ‘to break down the dichotomies of body and mind, emotion and reason, nonverbal and verbal, in our analyses of social and cultural organization’ (Blacking, 1977, viii). Blacking, in his paper, considers human society as a biological phenomenon (Blacking, 1977, 8) and is careful to emphasise the role of human adaptation in relation to social and environmental factors that impact on human evolution. Arguing from what seems to be a largely phenomenological perspective that draws on Merleau-Ponty, Blacking argues for somatic, cognitive and unconscious capacities that are specific to humans as a species but are affected by factors of social and cultural environment. He posits the possibility of ‘shared somatic states’ (Blacking, 1977, 9) although recognising that society or culture may be limiting factors. The human potential to ’transform commonly experienced internal sensations into externally visible and transmissible forms’ seems to offer the possibility of universal communication that is limited by social and cultural differences, and in particular by aspects of culture ’in which excessive importance is attached to verbal communication’ (Blacking, 1977, 10).
In Blacking’s description of potential as
becoming atrophied if not given the ‘appropriate social and cultural
environment ‘ (Blacking, 1977, 10-11) may be sensed an underlying
utopian vision of a world in which the communication between all humans
is developed by virtue of their potential being realised through appropriate
opportunities. A visionary element to Blacking’s paper is further
revealed in his references to human capacity for telepathy that for
some may make his position difficult to agree with. Yet as the dance
Also writing in the late 1970s,
From the above it can be seen that prior to the last quarter of the twentieth century, questions about the significance of the body and its relationship to society and social interaction had been explored from a combination of anthropological, sociological and psychological viewpoints. During the 1970s, discussion of the various interrelationships between body:mind:society suggested in earlier writings, often reveal the influence of the discourse of structuralism. The influence of linguistic models of structuralism focussed attention on the structural relationships between the components of action, while anthropological interest emphasised the structures of the relationship between action and societies. As data revealing the cultural differences in what Mauss had termed ‘body techniques’ was collected, this data could be presented so as to demonstrate structural universals such as the relationship between social pressure and physical self control (Douglas, 1973 , chapter 7).
Power and Distinction: Perspectives from the works of
The 1970s also saw publications by two key
French academics that further contributed to interest in the subject
of the body and embodiment within a range of academic studies in the
latter part of the twentieth century. The sociologist
In the seminal Discipline and Punish (1979) [published in French as Naissance de La Prison,1975] Michel Foucault charts changes in power relations exemplified in relation to French history spanning from the period of Medieval autocracy to modern democracy. His account is revealing of how the body is implicated in these changes:
The body is also directly involved in a political field; power relations have an immediate hold upon it; they invest it, mark it, train it, torture it, force it to carry out tasks, to perform ceremonies, to emit signs.
In the examination of the relationship between
physical and social control there are striking similarities here with
the work of both
It is this whole technology of power over the body that the technology of the ‘soul’ that of the educationalists, psychologists and psychiatrists fails either to conceal or compensate, for the simple reason that it is one of its tools.
It is perhaps the focus on the inescapable
nature of power that impacts on the body through self monitoring that
has led to
Once the body is contained within modern disciplinary systems, it is the mind which takes over as the location for discursive power.
Schilling, 1993, 80
How classical ballet is located within the
context of the Western European cultural traditions that
In Discipline and Punish there is at
least one passage where
If we studied the intention of nature and the construction of the human body, we would find the position and the bearing that nature clearly prescribes for the soldier.
Guibert, 1772 in
Dance scholars may find parallels here between Guibert’s complaints about ‘unfortunate soldiers in constricting and forced attitudes’ and the grumbles of his near contemporary, the ballet master and choreographer Jean-Georges Noverre, against over complicated steps and cumbersome costumes. In his Lettres of 1760, Noverre entreated students of dance ‘to cease to resemble marionettes’ and to ‘gracefully set aside the narrow laws of a school to follow the impressions of nature’ (Noverre, 1966 , 99-108).
From a dance perspective this can be understood as an indication of attitudes to the body in dance reflecting the broader culture. For Foucault, the reference to Guibert is not only to provide evidence of a cultural shift of interest from the body as mechanical object to the body as natural object, but reveals the body as the site of the interplay between power and the individual:
The body required to be docile in its minutest operations, opposes and shows the conditions of functioning proper to an organism. Disciplinary power has as its correlative an individuality that is not only analytical and ‘cellular’, but also natural and organic.
It would be wrong to say that the soul is an illusion, or an ideological effect. On the contrary, it exists, it has a reality, it is produced permanently around, on, within the body by the functioning of a power that is exercised on those punished - and, in a more general way, on those one supervises, trains and corrects...
This real non corporeal soul is not a substance; it is the element in which are articulated the effects of a certain type of power and the reference of a certain type of knowledge, the machinery by which the power relations give rise to a possible corpus of knowledge.
‘’Resistance’’ is thus explained as
a sort of natural (i.e. pre social and apolitical) emanation of the
body, as ‘’power’’ is conceived as a natural (trans-historical and
trans-cultural) emanation of society. Neither has a definable political
purpose or specific social or institutional source. In being thus
depoliticized and desocialised,
In his analyses of the body, I am unsure whether
He should divide his attention between the mechanism of the steps and the movements proper to express the passions…
Noverre, 1966 , 106
Another consequence of dualism is that it encourages the all too common view that the training of a dancer is the training of the body, simply as physical. The body then is viewed mechanistically, as a thing to be honed, and moulded into shape.
Horton-Fraleigh, 1987, 11
Such problems have not deterred a fascination
with discourse amongst dance theorists: a whole conference at The
University of Surrey in 1995 entitled
Border Tensions: Dance and Discourse brought together a
number of speakers who drew on various discourses such as those of
feminism, post modernism, psychoanalysis and semiotics to both illuminate
aspects of dance and, to some extent, (see particularly Thomas, 1996,
305-321) to question the significance of such
discourses in the emergent field of dance studies. As
Before discussing this further it may help
to explore some issues raised by
Because they are acquired in social fields which are also markets in which they receive their price, cultural competencies are dependent on these markets, and all struggles over culture are aimed at creating the market most favourable to the products which are marked, in their manners, by a particular class of conditions of acquisition…
Bourdieu, 1979, 95
Aware from his sociological data of the correlation between class and the capacity to appreciate high culture he determines to ‘bring to light the hidden conditions behind this “miracle”’(Bourdieu, 1979, 28). He is thus concerned with how the dominant groups maintain their ‘mode of acquisition’, particularly in relation to passing their cultural capital on to their descendents. Focussing on those methods that are least visible, Bourdieu develops the concept of ‘habitus’ as a ‘disposition that generates meaningful practices and meaning giving perceptions’ (Bourdieu, 1979, 70). The ‘habitus’ is revealed through ‘differences in gesture and posture and behaviour which express a whole relationship to the social world’ (Bourdieu, 1979, 192) and relates to different classificatory systems that are both structured and structuring of behaviour:
The principle of division into logical classes which organises the perception of the social world is itself the product of internalisation of the division into social classes.
Bourdieu, 1979, 170
Bourdieu argues that children are most easily
inculcated into cultural practices by their parents and points to
how success in an educational institution is reliant on the child’s
early induction into the relevant cultural practices, especially where
they may not be explicitly taught. Thus perceptual and evaluative
schemes are reproduced by the dominant class in relation to legitimate
culture. Bourdieu’s study identified the ability to categorise experiences
and to maintain that sense of distance necessary for traditional forms
of the aesthetic disposition as central attributes of the French elite.
In his preface to the English language edition of Distinction,
Bourdieu suggests the relevance of his findings to the wider context
of western societies (Bourdieu, 1984, xi). For him, as for Mauss and
Since Bourdieu’s research in
Competence in relation to appreciating the arts, according to Bourdieu, is ‘an unconscious mastery of the instruments of appropriation’. It is ‘a practical mastery which, like an art of thinking or an art of living, cannot be transmitted solely by precept or prescription’ (Bourdieu, 1979, 66). The habitus and the dispositions to perceptual schemes it engenders may not always be readily available for description. Bourdieu’s interest in how the transmission of cultural capital may be hidden leads him to illustrate the difficulties in taking on the habitus of a social group someone is not born into, in part because the values and attitudes that are embodied are not always made explicit. In this light, different aesthetic approaches may be seen as related to competing interests of different groups that may not be openly acknowledged. This raises the possibility that the manner in which the dancing body is approached could be politically saturated without this being apparent to audience or artist.
While accounting for why differences in bodily posture and movement may be perceived as embodying the values and attitudes of a specific social group, the concept of habitus supports the sense that just what is embodied is dependent on interactions within a social field and thus liable to change. In focussing on what forms the dispositions of individuals within a social field, Bourdieu brings to the fore the embodied experiences that form the person. The dancing body may be perceived as meaningful in relation to the habitus and as such both structured by and structuring of the social world in which it is presented. Unless dance is thought to exist in its own hermetically sealed social or aesthetic field, it is difficult not to conclude that such meanings have resonance in relation to the wider cultural context. Such meanings emanating from the social field are subject to changes in that field and derived from the practices and perceptions found within a particular social field that may at times be nearly invisible to members of that social group.
Bringing a reading of Bourdieu into play in
the interpretation of dance draws attention to how dance may be seen
to embody cultural norms. In discussions of the past this may not
reveal anything new or contentious: the significance of
3.5 Implications for the Intertextual Interpretation of Dance
As the discussion of
The problem with this view, however, is that it is somewhat at odds with the postmodernist/ poststructuralist rhetoric that the paper seems to celebrate, in that it assumes it is through the relation of the creator/performer to the spectacle that the single reading the audience is allowed/enabled to see is fixed.
In interpreting dance within the intertextual framework proposed by Adshead (1999), it is important to reflect on why certain ‘intertexts’ are viewed as being of particular importance. Later chapters will consider aspects of how ethnicity, gender, class, age and ability are perceived as embodied in dance and the impact such perceptions may have on the value placed on dances. In any such discussion it is important to be wary of reducing dances to a singular reading by only focussing attention on how aspects of ethnicity, class or gender are embodied.
Drawing on a range of aesthetic traditions
dating back to Kant, but strongly influenced by the phenomenology
of Merleau-Ponty, the aesthetician
Contrasting the positions of Bourdieu with
Crowther, as in the earlier comparison of the stance of
Embodiment is more then conceptual; it is also potentiality and the realization of that potency requires a social critique which recognizes that some societies are more free than others.
Turner, 1996 , 232
Whether the optimistic or pessimistic point of view is taken, or even some combination, this debate raises awareness of the possibility that the choices of ‘texts’ that are emphasised in an intertextual approach to a dance may be loaded with political and ethical concerns.
Reflecting on the above re-emphasises the
importance of the relationship between discourse and the phenomenological
experience of the body in dance. Following
Rather than trying to fit the notion of habitus
into semiotics, it might be simpler to allow for a dialogue between
the phenomenological experience of dance and the reflective processes
involved in intertextual interpretation. This might be one way in
which reflection on the phenomenological experience of embodiment
can enhance that interpretation. Within the context of academic disciplines
which have separated the study of semiotics and phenomenology this
may seem strange. However, as I have already touched on above, beyond
dance there is a recognition that the social theory of the body is
often ‘narrowly focussed on the representational and cultural dimensions
of the body’ (Turner, 2000 , 492). While
It has been suggested by the cultural and
These pairs of terms define a critical moment in theorizing about culture and self.....our purpose is to identify the terrain on which opposed terms meet, whether they are understood to remain in tension or to collapse upon one another. That terrain is marked by the characteristic reflectiveness and the process of objectification that define human consciousness, giving substance to representation and specificity to being-in-the-world.
Csordas, 1994, 20
The exploration of much of this terrain leads to a contemplation of the workings of the subconscious that is outside the province of this study. The contemplation of embodiment would be much easier if it were certain that all experiences of the world were always and completely saturated by the structures of discourse, or conversely, that humans are capable of pre-reflective experience not coloured by the symbolic systems of the culture into which they are born. Yet anthropology suggests a more complex interrelationship of nature:culture. Just how, and to what extent, the human biological organism is implicated in culture seems still ultimately shrouded in the mysteries of consciousness. Rather than resort to hiding behind these mysteries, insights from a number of different disciplines can lead to interrogation of the assumptions that may colour judgements and interpretations and consideration of the complexities of phenomenological experience.
3.6 The Significance of the Kinaesthetic
It may be useful at this point to consider the role of the imagination and the importance of the kinaesthetic sense in the appreciation of movement, particularly that which is new to the audience. In terms of appreciation of a dance after the event, there would be an expectation that some reasons could be given for what was enjoyed and understood. Unless traditional essentialist aesthetics is rigidly enforced, it would be recognised that differences between members of the audience might lead to variations in what is enjoyed and understood as significant. Drawing on a consideration of the ‘habitus’ it might also be considered that, perhaps at a subconscious level, cultural norms are recognised to be embodied, or even repudiated, in the dance. Yet reflecting on the phenomenological experience of the dance may bring to light a sense of empathy or connection with a performer that is difficult to explain in the above terms. By imaginatively engaging with dance the audience can empathise with a way of being different to their own that is difficult to put into words. The kinaesthetic sense, by which physical sensations are associated with movements that are viewed, may facilitate a response to different ways of structuring bodily experience and the world views that inform them. It is possible that imaginative ‘in the moment’ involvement in a dance draws on visual, aural and proprioceptive experiences that have not always been consciously labelled.
Kinaesthetic responses to dance are not restricted
to those who have practical experience of the dance form they watch,
although it is likely that whether or not a spectator has the experience
of actually having performed a grand jeté leads to a different order
of kinaesthetic response when watching
3.7 Embodiment, Intertextuality and the Role of the Imagination in Appreciation
and unconsciously people may incorporate ways of being that structure
and are structured by their participation in social processes, focuses
attention on the significance of the movement range, spatial and dynamic
patterning and postural subtleties of dance. In relation to forms
of (western) theatre dance, in the very act of dancing on European
stages today, dancers may be perceived as negotiating the legacy of
rationalism, the power of social controls over individuals or their
relationship to cultural groups. Only by disregarding the various
discourses of sociology, anthropology, poststructuralism and phenomenology
to maintain an essentialist and formalist aesthetic approach to dance
can the connections be ignored between the experience of bodily movement
and posture in everyday social contexts and the appreciation of dancing
bodies. The anthropologist
Geertz, 1976, 1477
There is the danger of an inherent essentialism in drawing on sociological and anthropological discourses to interpret a dance as the sum of what can be named as being embodied by the dancers. In the reflection on dance, after the event, various ‘texts’ may be drawn on to illuminate interpretations and to inform value judgements made about a dance. In such an intertextual analysis, sociological or anthropological texts may be drawn on to suggest reasons why a dance appears to represent one group of people in a particular way. Illuminating as such reflections can be, there is a danger that in such an analysis the focus becomes too narrowly set on discourse as inscribed on the body. Discussions of different readings of a dance become reduced to choices between discourses and as such are often too easily politicised in terms that, it could be argued, do not do justice to the full creative vision of a choreographer.
To return to the
The appreciation of dance may be considered to draw on phenomenological experience interwoven with reflections on that experience. In this manner questions can be asked as to what preconceptions might be colouring both experience of the dance and accounts arising from it. Drawing on anthropological and sociological texts may lead to the contemplation of the role of intuition in recognising movement that either fits or counteracts the norms of a social group to which the audience member ‘belongs’. This raises the question of how audiences seem to respond ‘in the moment’ to a dance that emanates from a different culture to their own. By engaging imaginatively with the dance phenomenon, insights may be gained into another ‘way of being’. Imaginative engagement with dance that draws on all the senses, including the kinaesthetic, is an important aspect of the audience’s phenomenological experience of dance. Such engagement can contribute to understanding and, in turn, this understanding may inform appreciation. Care needs to be taken to recognise the (inter)subjectivity of this experience and, in relation to appreciation of dance as art, to remember that aesthetic enjoyment does not (and in Kantian terms should not) rely on the binding of understanding to a concept (even if from sociological or anthropological perspectives insights so gained may be useful). However, the potential of a dance to encourage this imaginative engagement does seem to be important to dance artists and it is something that will be explored further in relation to what dance artists have said about dance. Further, the possibility will also be considered that, in a context in which diversity is an issue of both local and global significance, the potential for such imaginative engagement with what might be viewed as ‘other’ becomes of increasing importance.
Notes to Chapter Three
Employed in university departments of philosophy,
Since there are two different Turners writing on similar