In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

PART ONE: Introduction [Cartesian] mind/body dualism is no mere philosophical position to be defended or dispensed with by clever argument. Rather, it is a practical metaphysics that has been deployed and socially embodied in medicine, law, literary and artistic representations, the psychological construction of self, interpersonal relationships, popular culture, and advertisements—a metaphysics which will be deconstructed only through concrete transformation of the institutions and practices that sustain it. —Susan Bordo, Unbearable Weight: Feminism, Western Culture and the Body, 1993:13–14 The modern dance is not a system; it is a point of view. This point of view has been developing through the years, and it is by no means an isolated development. It has gone hand in hand with the development of points of view on other subjects. —John Martin, The Modern Dance, 1933:20 Over the relatively short course of two decades, these six national dance organizations were formed in the United States: The American Dance Guild (ADG; 1956), Congress On Research in Dance (CORD; 1965), American Dance Therapy Association (ADTA; 1966), American College Dance Festival Association (ACDFA; 1973), Dance Critics Association (DCA; 1974), and Society of Dance History Scholars (SDHS; 1978). Each represented different branches within the field. They fostered communication, lobbied for federal recognition, and enriched the depth and quality of work in their respective areas. Through conferences, workshops, and newsletters, these organizations became venues for forging new research methods specific to the embodied medium of dance, and provided institutional legitimacy to the discipline of dance. This in turn helped academicians to build graduate programs in dance studies. Speaking with a unified, representative voice in matters of government legislation and funding, these vital organizations helped dance to be recognized as a part of larger cultural discourses concerning education , government, and health. I argue that the founding of dance organizations between 1956 and 1978 represents the national institutionalization of a platform for intelligent bodily practice, reflecting but also substantiating a radical transformation in the politics of knowledge in academia. 1 The American Dance Guild was the early pioneer, formed in 1956 as the Guild of Creative Teachers of Children’s Dance. Its purpose was broad: to develop creative dance education as an art and to serve as an organized and informed voice on dance to the public. The Congress On Research in Dance, formed in 1965 as a Committee On Research in Dance, was the first organization to focus specifically on research in dance. It focused on developing, communicating, and disseminating scholarship in dance. Shortly thereafter, in 1966, the American Dance Therapy Association was formed to ensure the rigor and integrity of therapeutic approaches to dance and to demand that the medical community recognize the achievements made in dance therapy since its incarnation at Saint Elizabeths Hospital in Washington, D.C. In 1973, the American College Dance Festival Association organized to confront the prejudice against dance on college campuses. ACDFA envisioned and developed an annual festival for the presentation, development, and adjudication of college dance, thereby building a bridge between the art and scholarship of dance. The Dance Critics Association formed in 1974, addressed a growing need for the development of dance writing and, thereby, most explicitly addressed the relationship between words and movement. Their work had expansive implications, at once communicating dance to a broad reading public while also grappling with issues of meaning in movement and language that held particular relevance for academic contexts. The Society of Dance History Scholars was formed in 1978 with a specific focus on dance history and recognition of the methodological challenges particular to the discipline. By the time the last group formed, the impact of these organizations was evident. They had created contexts for dance scholarship, nurtured new work, and fostered multifaceted discourses in dance. The individuals who I interviewed for this book describe how important it was to develop a substantial base to legitimize the work they were doing and the necessity of these organized professional networks for emerging dance scholars . CORD founder Patricia Rowe stressed that they “wanted to give dance greater recognition in higher education . . . [and] to encourage young researchers” (Patricia Rowe, CORD interview). She went on: We felt, in the beginning, that the accomplished researcher could already be published—they didn’t need the organization to invest its money in them. The persons we wanted to help were the ones that were just doing their degrees. [Our purpose was] to say “Publish. Publish. The next time you do it, it’s not as...

Share