Johann Buis
Mutuality? Are European Couples Dances Metaphors for Western Civilization?
One-and-two . . . hop! One-and-two . . . hop! Looking left at every hop, then looking right at the next. The class of onlookers in a circle smiled as they watched my partner and me playfully gliding and hopping halfway around the circle.
“Your turn, Caroline, take the lead,” I whispered. Bewildered, she did not expect such spontaneous change of protocol. I, on the other hand thought it only fair that she should also have a chance at leading the polka. We lost our footing and fumbled to an ignominious premature halt while the recording continued playing to the end.
“Johann, you must lead to the end!” the instructor called out. Ashen-faced, I shrugged and apologized to my dance partner. Why can dance partners not share the leading during a dance? I regarded the question a common courtesy. In reality, what I thought of as a courtesy resulted in a disaster. On that beautiful autumn day in Salzburg, Austria, what seemed like my ineptitude bothered me profoundly; should the leadership of a European couples dance not be a symbol of an equal partnership?
Then I discovered it! The polka was indeed a metaphor for male dominance, and female subservience. Was that the case with the Waltz, the foxtrot, and the tango? Absolutely! The courtly couples dances of 18th century France feigned suppression of male leadership with deep bows and waving of the feathered hat, but the sword was still by the man’s left side! Who would ever attack a dancing couple? Why not leave the sword at home? No, Man upheld the role of the Protector of the frail Lady! She at his right, and the sword at his left.
With subtlety, we have turned European couples social dances into metaphors for our society! Man, always the leader! Man, always the protector! Little wonder that by the 20th century mass media globalized by movies could spread the female metaphor of subservience across the world. Elegance caught the viewer’s gaze. Aptly, the elegance could be described as “Ginger Rodgers did everything Fred Astaire did, but backwards and in high heels!” This witticism points beyond female subservience; it points to a female superior ingenuity, a cunning, and an ability to invert male (dance) leadership; indeed, subverting the power dynamic while executing European couples dances.
This strategy of subverting the power dynamic is evident in the African and African-American literary trope of tropes; Signifyin’. The Encyclopedia Britannica describes Henry Louis Gates’ description of Signifyin’ as argued in his pioneering book The Signifying Monkey: A Theory of Afro-American Literary Criticism (1988), as follows: “Signifyin’ is the practice of representing an idea indirectly, through a commentary that is often humorous, boastful, insulting, or provocative. Gates argued that the pervasiveness and centrality of signifyin’ in African and African American literature and music means that all such expression is essentially a kind of dialogue with the literature and music of the past. Gates traced the practice of signifyin’ to Esu, the trickster figure of Yoruba mythology, and to the figure of the “signifying monkey,” with which Esu is closely associated.” Therefore, the female partner in European couples dances makes a signifyin’ move; while accepting the “supposed subservient” role, she excels in a move of double trickery; backwards and in high heels! This is a metaphor of subverting a power dynamic that might even be “humorous, boastful, insulting, or provocative!”