What's in a Name: Vestiges of Cultural Imperialism?
by Zarifa Sa'id
This article first appeared in and is copyrighted by The Caravan Magazine, reprinted in its entirety by permission. Subscriptions to The Caravan Magazine can be obtained through email: caravan@avana.net  or visit the  Caravan Magazine website.
 

What is in a name, one wonders. Proponents of naming Raqs Sharqi dance steps cite a general confusion and lack of standards for Raqs Sharqi as performed in the U. S. that would be solved by creating and agreeing upon names for steps. Having names would make it easier to teach because we would all know what movement a particular name referred to and by extension have some idea as to the correct way to perform that step. A correct way would have to be specified or how would one know whether in fact the step being performed is the one to which the name refers. How pleasant to have it all organized for us. Indeed this seems straightforward.

Unfortunately, some niggling doubts chew away in the back of my mind. How did many centuries worth of performers - and this dance has been performed by generations of dancers, passed down through families, and even taught in choreographies - manage without names? Has anyone considered that there is a reflection of a culture in this lack of names? The very people who created, nurtured and perform this dance do so without reference to names. And many of those performers and teachers in the 20th Century have taken full advantage of Western dance training. So they know that in Western dance movements have names. In other words, Raqs Sharqi movements remain nameless not through the "ignorance" of the native performers, but through their desire that it be so. Either they don't want names or they are unconcerned by the lack of names.

If this is the case, then what does it mean that we in the U.S. feel we have to force the issue and insist that steps be named. There is something faintly paternalistic in our efforts to standardize and Westernize Raqs Sharqi. It's as though we think something is missing...something which we can supply. It's reminiscent of early anthropological tracts by Western scholars on native religions, social systems, kinship patterns, and so forth which characterized them as "primitive". As more data was collected and as our own systems of inquiry matured, we recognized that there was a lot of value which had been overlooked in native systems. Kinship systems which seemed bizarre were shown to be complex systems for organizing and ordering human relationships. Might it not be useful to consider what we might be overlooking in the cultural system for transmitting dance movements and patterns without naming them? Rather than a major inconvenience sustained by a culture that we secretly characterize as disorganized and backwards, possibly there is something positive here.

I am reminded of an observation made by a friend of mine at a workshop taught by Nadia Hamdi. Nadia teaches in the "follow me" style which is as frustrating for Westerners as is the lack of names. Shakira of Ohio pointed out, however, that by not defining technique Nadia left people to find their own interpretations for what she was teaching. This is not to say that she was unconcerned with technique. She watched the class and, in finding something that seemed to be difficult, would focus on demonstrating that step until most people had it to her satisfaction. Still, there was a freedom in following that is not duplicated in our technique classes. People danced with joy if not precision...but that joy is the point and it is communicable through performing. It is often difficult for the Western student to make the transition from doing steps correctly to dancing with joy. This is not to argue for ignoring technique, but it is to recognize that there are many paths to education.

And so it is with names. There is a freedom that exists in not defining things and that freedom nurtures creativity and individuality. Individuality is one of the hallmarks of Raqs Sharqi. It is one of the reasons that is so difficult to define an "Egyptian" style. Every dancer is unique in her repertoire of movements and in her styling. This is in part due to the lack of names and standardization of movement technique. Furthermore, individuality is desirable. So in imposing names are we doing violation to that which we seek to preserve? And are we guilty of a kind of subtle cultural imperialism that seeks to force the transmission of another culture's dance expression into modes of transmission that suit us?

I can't resist considering a different example. In Japan there is a real passion for American Square Dance. The thought seems "off" to me, but probably no more "off" than Westerners performing Raqs Sharqi. Consider how we would feel if the Japanese enthusiasts of Square Dance felt that they should rename the steps into something more compatible to their understanding. Wouldn't it seem not only strange, but patronizing. And wouldn't we see it as an infringement on "our" form of artistic expression.

On the other Hand, I am a Western person. And as such feel more comfortable with order and structure. I'm frustrated when a student, trying to commit a step to memory asks for a name. And so I use names...names that have evolved among Western dance teachers and students of Raqs Sharqi over the last twenty-plus years. We don't all use the same names, but many of them are similar. We also don't all agree on technique for those steps, but most of us teach technique that has also evolved to teach Westerners an art form from another culture. So we have names and we have technique, we just don't all agree on everything. Again this seems simple, but let me examine an case in point.

Let us consider a vertical figure eight, down. Many people will recognize this as a "Maya". I've called the movement a "Maya" for years, but am working to move away from people names for steps towards names that describe the movement as best I can. There is at least one major area of disagreement on the proper technique for this step. I was recently in a workshop where there were two master teachers - both very accomplished. One taught the movement with the heels lifting to assist the hip movement; the other taught that the heels should remain on the floor so that the muscles alone produce the hip movement. I happen to be an advocate of the second method, as I think the muscle tension produces a more focused, intense movement than generally occurs when the heels are lifted. Consequently, my fear would be that those people who teach the former method would be in charge of choosing names and defining technique. Therein lies the problem which is the tip of the iceberg of naming names. Who is going to decide which name is evocative of a movement and who is going to define proper technique?

In addition to fearing that the "wrong" persons would be in charge, there is the individuality and creativity issue. I would fight to defend their right to be "wrong". Likewise, I insist on my right be "wrong" or at least different if I choose. I am, therefore, mainly concerned that our search for structure and organization will greatly constrict our freedom of interpretation, especially in directions that I might not choose.

And finally, names are not the problem. I think that the desire to name steps comes from a desire for this art form as we practice it in this country be respected as meeting professional dance standards. There is also a desire that there be standards to provide a goal for students and to provide a measure for those of us who wish to be considered "professional". I think this lack of professionalism, however, is something of a myth. There are many professionals in our business and there are many amateurs who uphold professional standards. I think we confuse the performances at workshop shows as being intended to be "professional" when actually they mix students and hobbyists with professional level dancers. Workshop shows and most other venues available for Raqs Sharqi are more similar to neighborhood theatre than they are to professional theatre. Just as the lower standard of performance in neighborhood theatre does not imply a lack of standards for the profession of acting, the lower standards for performance of Raqs Sharqi witnessed in many venues does not imply a lack of standards for Raqs Sharqi. The fact that there are so few professional level shows is due to the lack of market for those shows. We need in this business to put energy into developing public interest and creating a market so that people will have the time and resources necessary to become professional. Creating names and specifying standards will not solve the problem of lack of professionalism in the teaching and presentation of our art form. Lack of knowledge is not so much the problem as lack of resources to pursue knowledge. The lack of resources is directly attributable to a lack of market caused by a general public disinterest in ethnic dance arts.

Wouldn't it make sense, instead of beating up on ourselves for not being professional, to put some energy into thinking about how we can develop an interest and a market for ethnic dance arts? In some way, then, the effort to name names can be seen as a diversion from the main problem that faces us. Maybe we should create a forum for discussing ways to develop a market. Any thoughts on that?  

Send email to Zarifa Sa'id

article index top of page