Valerie Gibbs
DAN 111
Jonathan Gonzalez
Lena Hammergren's "The Power of Classification," from Worlding Dance,
goes deeply and thoughtfully into how cultural, historical, and political forces of
classification shape dance. What struck me most in reading this chapter is
Hammergren's emphasis that classification cannot be viewed as some sort of
disinterested or pragmatic tool of organization. It is, instead, thoroughly implicated
in powerful ways, especially with regard to representation, interpretation, and
identity. Her use of theoretical frameworks from Foucault, Borges, Vissicaro, Bhabha,
and Appadurai widens the ways we might consider dance beyond questions of
movement and aesthetics. The chapter made me reconsider how categories-even
those we would think of as innocuous, like "Indian dance," "classical dance," or
"multicultural dance"-are socially constituted and carry consequences for how
dancers and cultures are valued and understood.
Hammergren's ambiguous list of dance forms and related items sets the stage,
juxtaposed against Foucault's critique of Borges' fictional taxonomy. This kind of
strange list is disorderly for Foucault, or "thought without space," but Hammergren
claims, to the contrary, that her list contains meaning in the power structures shaping
world dance classification history. This argument resonated with me because it upsets
the assumption that classification requires coherence. Instead, Hammergren suggests
that incoherence is often a sign of the complex and uneven histories that produce
categories. Using Foucault's notion of heterotopia-spaces where incompatible things
coexist-helped me grasp how dance histories can hold tensions, contradictions, and
overlapping influences without the need for tidiness or linearity. It made me think
about how often we try to make culture fit into neat boxes, when in reality culture is
messy, layered, and full of movement across borders.
DAN 111
Jonathan Gonzalez
Lena Hammergren's "The Power of Classification," from Worlding Dance,
goes deeply and thoughtfully into how cultural, historical, and political forces of
classification shape dance. What struck me most in reading this chapter is
Hammergren's emphasis that classification cannot be viewed as some sort of
disinterested or pragmatic tool of organization. It is, instead, thoroughly implicated
in powerful ways, especially with regard to representation, interpretation, and
identity. Her use of theoretical frameworks from Foucault, Borges, Vissicaro, Bhabha,
and Appadurai widens the ways we might consider dance beyond questions of
movement and aesthetics. The chapter made me reconsider how categories-even
those we would think of as innocuous, like "Indian dance," "classical dance," or
"multicultural dance"-are socially constituted and carry consequences for how
dancers and cultures are valued and understood.
Hammergren's ambiguous list of dance forms and related items sets the stage,
juxtaposed against Foucault's critique of Borges' fictional taxonomy. This kind of
strange list is disorderly for Foucault, or "thought without space," but Hammergren
claims, to the contrary, that her list contains meaning in the power structures shaping
world dance classification history. This argument resonated with me because it upsets
the assumption that classification requires coherence. Instead, Hammergren suggests
that incoherence is often a sign of the complex and uneven histories that produce
categories. Using Foucault's notion of heterotopia-spaces where incompatible things
coexist-helped me grasp how dance histories can hold tensions, contradictions, and
overlapping influences without the need for tidiness or linearity. It made me think
about how often we try to make culture fit into neat boxes, when in reality culture is
messy, layered, and full of movement across borders.
