Our panel, on “Dancing Democracy,” was conceived and organized this spring and summer, well before September 11. The New School turns out to be a prime location for the topic, and its unanticipated urgency, given the proximity of the New School to ground zero and its historical connection with the self-consciously democratic endeavor of modern dance. This was a genre that sought to distinguish itself as a democratic art form, in response to the perceived elitism of the European ballet. It was here at the New School in the 1930s that dance classes, recitals, and a now-famous series of lecture-demonstrations helped to cohere the young modern dance community.

Talk of dance and democracy has crystallized again 60-some years later, the result of a convergence of three intellectual and artistic trends.

First, there is the growing concern that a people once known for their civic associations are now, as sociologist Robert Putnam famously put it, “bowling alone.” Political philosophers such as Benjamin Barber have been analyzing the theory and practice of civil society as fundamental to the operation of what he terms “strong democracy.” We don't have to make an either-or choice, Barber tells us, between the purely public space of an invasive government and the purely private space of a crassly commercialized market.

Listening to the work presented at the 2001 meeting of the Congress on Research in Dance, “Transmigratory Moves,” one could not help noticing that both established and emerging dance scholars were in the process of attempting to find a fuller and more accurate way of understanding the relationship between global political and economic forces and movement praxis. The following articles (all extended versions of work presented at the conference) exemplify different aspects of these new initiatives in our field. As Shanti Pillai points out in her piece, the term “globalization” has tended to provoke two kinds of responses: either panic over the global imposition of American corporate culture, or else celebration of cultural hybridity and the resilience of indigenous forms. Both of these responses can often present a reductive view of what are, in fact, highly complex phenomena. All three of the articles presented here attempt a more nuanced narrative of the effects of traveling choreographic and movement practices.

Discussions about globalization tend to fall somewhere between two poles. One invokes the paranoia of what Appadurai (1996) refers to as a McDonaldization of the world, in which local practices, identities, and economies give way to the homogenizing mandates of capitalism. The other rejoices over the emergence of so-called hybrid cultural forms, interpreted as signs of the resilience of non-Western societies, as harbingers of the dawn of some new age of multicultural understanding, or as proof of the political power of consumers (Garcia Canclini 1995). Both views often underestimate the complexity of the relationship between the local and the global, and lose from view the fact that this relationship can be understood only in terms of historical conditions operating in specific contexts. While capitalism plunders the world, littering its path with Tommy Hilfiger, Pizza Hut, and the ever-popular sitcom Friends, there are many examples of the ways in which local populations do not passively consume what is thrown at them, but actively reinterpret and selectively combine elements of mass-mediated culture within preexisting frameworks and markets (Diawara 1998; Feld 1988; Martinez 1999). Moreover, the indigenization of global culture opens up the possibility of alternative experiences of modernity, which do not fall under the rubric of American culture but instead refer to other geocultural identities (Ching 2000).

When I arrived at nine o'clock, the deejay was spinning “trip hop” style disks in the “chill room” upstairs until the formal dance show was supposed to start at ten o'clock downstairs. Critical mass is important: the event did not begin until midnight; size of crowd and group energy are the determining factors for starting time in hip hop culture. Eventually, the audience of about two hundred consisted of black, white, Asian, Hawaiian, military, and civilian patrons who were mostly in their late twenties. “What's up, y'all? Y'all ready for the show?” asked Jamal, Honolulu hip hop promoter and emcee, to open the event.

Jamal proceeded to read from a script about the beginnings of American society's acceptance of “African American culture in the 1920s Jazz Age,” putting what was about to happen in historical context and giving the event an informative purpose. This scripted narration of hip hop's historical context at a club event reflected an interest in specific African American origins of the pop culture form expressed by many global hip hop leaders. Thus began “Urban Movement,” a November 1998 b-boy (breakdance) event produced at the Wave Waikiki nightclub in Honolulu, on the island of Oahu. What followed was a demonstration of the current-day variations of hip hop dance that began in the 1970s with virtuosic athletic b-boying or b-girling and “popping,” the phenomenal muscular control of the rapid-fire rhythmic isolations. Urban Movement provided several hip hop enactments that illuminated what I investigate in this essay—the interdependence of performance and performativity as dual forces in global breakdancing.

My main focus is to reveal the existence of global influences on the development and teaching of somatic principles and disciplines and to discuss why these influences are not in the forefront of somatic inquiry. I hypothesize that the search for “the universal” or “the humanistic” or “the biological” as a throughline of body-mind investigation has encouraged a monocultural approach to somatic pedagogy and the promotion of the field. Second, it is of interest that it has been through the work of those founders of somatic disciplines who are women that it has become possible to retrace more easily some of these global influences on twenty-first-century somatic studies. I also posit that through the lives and experiences of women leaders a more emotional voice enters the holistic paradigm. This paper aims to raise questions, not to be exhaustive in its pursuit of data regarding all the intercultural complications of somatic practices, including questions emerging from gender politics. It is a continuation of the inquiry, begun during the panel “Paradigms and Approaches: The Future of Somatics in Dance” at the Dancing in the Millennium conference in July 2000 (jointly sponsored by CORD, SDHS, DCA, NDEO. LIMS, NDA. among others) regarding the dissolution of any potentially monolithic views of the history and etiology of “somatics,” as well as somatic movement applications in dance (Green 2000; Fortin 2000), with a specific eye to examining how cultural and religious movement practices from diverse cultures have provided philosophical underpinnings and influential theories and practices to the field.

While recent research in the United States indicates that gay and bisexual men comprise half the male population in dance, a very limited amount of scholarship focuses on the experiences of gay men and boys in dance education (Hamilton 1999). Cultural heterosexism and homophobia certainly contribute to this conspicuous absence of scholarship and discourse, as does institutionalized heterosexism in concert dance and Western social dance forms (Adair 1992; Burt 1995; Hanna 1988). Given the rich and compelling dance research in gender (Albright 1997, 1998; Bond 1994; Case et al. 1995; Crawford 1994; Daly 1998; Stinson et al. 1990; Stinson 1998; Thomas 1993) and feminist theory (Albright 1990; Banes 1998; Daly 1991, 2000; Foster 1996; Shapiro 1998; Stinson 1993), one questions the absence of scholarly analysis surrounding gay issues in dance education. Unfortunately, dance and dance education may unwittingly reproduce asymmetrical power relationships, social inequities, and sexist patriarchy by reaffirming the status quo operating in contemporary American culture. In doing so, the profession ignores vast educative opportunities for diminishing homophobia and antigay bias. In view of the relatively large numbers of gay men and young adults in the field, the lack of serious discourse and study of these critical issues is disheartening. I am reminded that Susan Stinson importantly asked the dance community these ethical questions nearly two decades ago. Regrettably, her cogent questions remain largely unanswered:

In the United States, educators of most school subjects, including arts and dance, are developing alternative measures to evaluate student learning at all educational levels. These measures can substitute for or supplement the short answer, multiple-choice, often standardized tests in common use. To differentiate this form of assessment of student learning from “tests,” innovators identify it by interchangeable names: authentic, performance, or performance-based assessment. In this essay I use these terms interchangeably. The innovators of authentic assessment focus on what students actually understand about the subjects they learn and if they can demonstrate their learning/understanding in two ways: in performance (doing) and with comprehension (explaining). In the study of dance, students more often demonstrate their learning by doing/dancing than they do by explaining. With both graduate and undergraduate dance students, I have experienced how performance-based assessment can facilitate the interaction of doing/dancing and explaining.