Dance Transmission, a Question of Learning or Teaching?

Abstract

I have been dealing with dance for solne years. Most of the time I worked as a folk dance instructor, for sotne years I have been a research assistant in ethnology and sometimes I worked as an artist. During the years many trues have risen and fallen, and new questions have appeared. I put forward solne of them here, and even if they night seem irrelevant, they still tulnble around in lny head. . . (For e2cample the exact relationship between music and dance, local variants versus personal ones. ) In this paper I will discuss some thoughts concerning teGlching or leGlrntng and dCance or d!Gmcing and what is really transmitted when you teach or learn to dance? To teach, in this paper is the point of view of the teacher, the one who can dance. He/she has a group that follows his/her instructions. It means that he/she gives away something in Swedish 'lara ut', 'teach out'. LeGlrning is the point of view of the 'object'. He/she has to learn, to take in in Swedish 'lara in', 'learn in'. The point is that you can learn without a teacher, but you can't teach without a learner. To transmit means something like to pass on to hand on, or to send froln one person to the other. Tradition means nearly the same it is something handed down from the past and there is a common way to e2cplain it. In Swedish we can use the synonym transfer or convey (over-fora) for both transmit and tradition. The only 'problem' is how distant the 'past' is was it just a minute ago or is it a generation ago . . . ? Without going too deep into the concept of tradition. I think that transtnission is necessary in tradition, but rnaybe not vice versa. It is probably not new that dance is a word can have at least the following meanings (see e2c Ronstrom): Dances or dance, e2c valtz, the choreographic pattern (dansen)