Defining according to function

Within this broad spectrum of forms, dance fulfills a number of very different functions, including the religious, the military, and the social. Nearly all cultures have had, or still possess, dances that play an important part in religious ritual. There are dances in which the performers and even the spectators work themselves into a trance in order to transcend their ordinary selves and receive the powers of the gods or, as in the case of Indian temple dancers, in which the performers enact the stories of the gods as a way of worshiping them. In some early Christian communities, processions or formal dance patterns formed part of the prayer service.

It is possible to view modern military marches and drilling procedures as descendants of the tribal war and hunting dances that have also been integral to many cultures. War dances, often using weapons and fighting movements, were used throughout history as a way of training soldiers and preparing them emotionally and spiritually for battle. Many hunting tribes performed dances in which the hunters dressed in animal skins and imitated the movements of their prey, thus acquiring the skills of the animal in question and, through sympathetic magic, gaining power over it.

Dance also plays a number of important social roles in all cultures, notably in matters of celebration, courtship, recreation, and entertainment. Courtship dances, for example, allow the dancers to display their vigour and attractiveness and to engage in socially accepted physical contact between the sexes. (The waltz, a relatively modern example of the courtship dance, was banned at certain times because its flagrant contact between the dancers was considered indecent.) Such traditional dances often contain fertility motifs, where mimed (or even actual) motions of sexual intercourse are enacted. One motif in particular, the fertility leap, in which the male dancer lifts the woman as high as he can, is common to many courtship dances, such as the Tyrolean Schuhplattler.

The importance of dance in courtship and social gatherings is probably older than its use as recreation and entertainment. Many scholars have suggested that dance was once an integral part of everyday life, accompanying both practical activities and religious rituals. Only when more complex social and economic structures began to emerge and a leisured class or caste came into existence did people begin to see dance as a source of pleasure, in some way distinct from the most important issues of survival.

Britannica Quiz

Another Dance Quiz

As societies became more complex, many of the earlier ritual forms, such as religious, work, and hunting dances, gradually lost their original significance and developed into recreational folk dances while still retaining many of their original motifs, such as the use of sticks or swords in the English Morris dance or the pole in Maypole dances. All kinds of dance in all stages of evolution, however, have retained some importance as means of social cohesion. Dance has also been used as a means of displaying political or social strength and identity. In ancient Greece, for example, citizens were compelled to attend dance dramas partly in order to encourage allegiance to the city-state. An example in the 19th century was Hungary’s purposeful revival of its national dances in order to promote a strong sense of national identity.

Distinguishing dance from other patterned movement

In all the different dance forms, movement becomes dance through stylization and formal organization, an organization that may be variously determined by an aesthetic idea or by the function of the dance (see below Choreography). There are, however, many kinds of activities involving disciplined and patterned movement that do not fit the category of dance—for example, sports or the behaviour of certain animals—because the principles that govern these activities are not the crucial principles of aesthetic pleasure, self-expression, and entertainment.

Distinguishing between a wrestling match and a choreographed fight in a ballet can illustrate the importance of these principles in defining dance. It is easy to distinguish between a real fight and a fight in a ballet because the former occurs in “real life” and the latter takes place in a theatre and because in the latter the antagonists do not actually want to hurt each other. But in wrestling matches, although the antagonists look as if they are fighting, they are also taking part in a choreographed drama that, like the ballet, is partly appraised on questions of style. In the wrestling match, however, these questions of style are not, as in ballet, central to the event but only incidental. The principle most strongly governing the fighters’ movements is the scoring of points rather than aesthetic appeal or self-expression. For this reason, even choreographed wrestling matches do not fit the same category as dance. (The martial arts of Southeast Asia cannot be as easily distinguished from dance, because the movements of the practitioners are expected to be as refined and as graceful as those in dance.)

Figure skating, particularly in its contemporary form of ice dance competition, is more difficult to distinguish from dance, because both aesthetic and expressive qualities are important. But at the same time, there are certain rules that have to be followed more stringently in ice skating than in dance, and once again the governing principle is the competitive display of skills rather than the enjoyment of movement for its own sake. (Dance competitions in which performers are given points present an even more difficult case of distinguishing art from sport, but, to the extent that it is governed by the principle of scoring points, dance competition cannot be defined as art.)

Marches and processions present another difficulty of classification. Some involve patterned groupings of people and a disciplined, stylized movement such as the military goose step, and the participants may feel and express powerful emotions. Such movements also may be accompanied by highly theatrical elements, such as colourful costumes, props, and music, that often accompany dance. But in a march the movement itself is so subordinate to other considerations—such as the mobilization of large numbers of people or the playing of music—that it cannot be regarded as dance.

Defining according to intent

An important factor distinguishing dance from other patterned movement is that of intention. The flight patterns made by swarms of bees or the elaborate courtship rituals of certain birds may be more pleasing to watch and more elaborately organized than the simple, untutored dancing movements of a child. Such patterned movements, however, are not referred to, except analogously, as dances because they are rooted in involuntary genetic behaviour necessary for the survival of the species. In other words, they are not intended as entertainment, aesthetic pleasure, or self-expression. Indeed, it may be argued that for an activity to count as dance, the dancer must be at least capable of distinguishing it as such or must intend it as such. (In Duet [1957] by the American choreographer Paul Taylor, two men simply remained motionless on stage for four minutes. Yet the piece was accepted as dance because of its aesthetic context: it was in a theatre and Taylor was known as an experimental choreographer. In addition, the spectators knew that it was intended as a piece that either was dance or was about dance.)

Even when an activity is clearly identified as dancing, there are frequent debates as to whether it is part of the art of dance. Any art form evolves through strong aesthetic principles, and the three main principles governing the art of dance have been discussed above. But of these three principles some may be recognized by one group and not by another. For example, classical ballet reached its zenith in Russia in the late 19th century: Its technique was perfectly developed, and its dancers were acknowledged virtuosos. But a number of choreographers, reacting against the dominant aesthetics of classical ballet, argued that it was simply empty acrobatics and not dance at all because it concentrated on showing the skills of individual dancers and failed to express any significant ideas or emotions. Similarly, when Martha Graham, the pioneer choreographer in American modern dance, first presented her works in the late 1920s, audiences found them so unlike the ballets that they were used to that they refused to acknowledge them as dance (see below Theatre dance: Modern dance). The debate goes on over the works of today’s avant-garde choreographers, and the same is true for one culture’s perceptions of another culture’s dance. When Europeans first encountered the highly sophisticated Middle Eastern dance form raqṣ sharqī, they perceived it as erotic display and called it the belly dance.