Dance Under the Censorship Watch

Abstract

During times of changing mores, dance, with its power to arouse, has subversive potential, which leaves it open to negative interpretation regardless of actual intent. The human body is a significant metaphor, and dance may reflect what is and suggest what might be (Douglas 1970, 64; Hanna 1987; Hanna 1988). That the instrument used for both dance and sex is the human body has long made dance suspect or immoral in some people’s eyes. Religious and political leaders worldwide often seek to bridle sexuality in various forms lest it undermine the status quo. Indeed, history attests to periodic bans on dancing as an attempt to guard vigilantly against its “evils” (Davies 1984; Wagner 1997). Baptist, Assemblies of God, and Church of Christ congregations are among the groups that have forbidden all forms of dance. In this article I call attention to the threat to all dance that comes from various forms of censorship, whether the target is the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) or the often stigmatized “exotic” dance, variously referred to as erotic, topless, strip, striptease, show bar, sports bar (with dancers and TV screens), nude, barroom, table, couch, lap, go-go, and gentlemen’s club dance. It should be noted that some “shocking” dances that created public outrage in the past have become classics and influenced the development of dance. Had there been censorship of those dances, our current repertoire would be less vibrant and enriching. The art of dance develops with inspiration from many sources, even those that are sexual and shocking. My continuing research and testimony as an expert court witness on exotic dance was a censorship alert that catalyzed my realization that attacks on publicly funded “high art” dance by the NEA and privately funded “low art/entertainment” exotic dance reflected the same impulse to prohibit that which some people deemed “obscene.” 1