Morris Dancing: Analyzing Cultural History, Participation, and Inclusiveness - Essay Example

Morris Dancing – Inclusiveness and Participation Morris Dancing – Analysis of Cultural History, Participation and Inclusiveness Knowledge and understanding are relevant. It is difficult to understand any concept in its entirety. For instance the definition of arts and culture can never be fully grasped because they are constantly evolving. When people talk about various art forms like theatre, music, culture or architecture they are only making distinctions between various art forms. Morris Dancing is an excellent example of this distinction. When an art-form like Morris Dancing exists purely as an aesthetic expression, it ranks high on inclusiveness and participation. But when it is turned into culture it becomes someone’s property, an identity, and eventually it loses its inclusiveness. This paper looks at a cultural performance and analyzes its inclusivity and participation. It discusses Morris Dancing specifically from historical, artistic and various cultural aspects. Theories discussed in the paper will be applied on this dance to help understand if this culture is inclusive and participatory or not. Various academic resources are consulted to understand how humans perceive and live cultures. The essay also looks into the reasons why some cultural practices are inclusive while others are rigid. Towards the end, a brief summary of the research findings are given as a summary to help understand why such cultural behaviours exist and how humans, on a collective basis, can improve their cultural and artistic thinking and behaviour in the future. The earliest record of Morris Dancing dates back to 1448 when a payment of seven shilling was paid by the Goldsmiths’ Company in London to a group of Morris Dancers (Heaney, 2004). It might have started purely as entertainment but later it became a part of the English culture and spread across the globe as a British cultural dance. Even though different cultures like American, Australian, and Canadian cultures enjoy it but the Morris Dance groups are mostly British expatriates. In other words Morris Dancing is specific to the British culture. Westminster Day of Dance 20091 It is impossible to confine arts and culture in a narrow definition. For this reason it is convenient to think of arts in terms of institutionalized definition. ‘Art world’ is the exhilaration of artistic skills, mostly displayed at places like museums, academia, art galleries etc. (Belfiore & Bennett, 2008). The same applies to culture as it manifests itself in various cultural exhibitions and art forms, including dancing. The distinctions in culture are stronger than they are in art. When Morris Dancing was purely aesthetical, it was flexible and inclusive but when it turned into cultural, it became distinct and rigid. When Morris Dancing is analysed out of pure aesthetics it shows flexibility in it; dancers can hold, sticks, swords or handkerchiefs as they please. There are routines in it but they are not strict; modern day Morris dancers innovate all the time to cater for the modern audiences. The dance gained popularity in the 15th century, especially among the lower-classes (Price, 1999). It was a popular culture of its own time, a charivari for the mundane folks. But modernization overshadowed it. It was turned into a national tradition and now it is taught in primary schools as a thing of the past. Cultural exhibitions, performances and projects are different in nature as compared to artworks. Any cultural event can be made less inclusive and participatory. Inclusivity means including other cultures, opinions and nationalities. It is also a measure of tolerance in ones culture for incorporating other’s. Morris Dancing is not an inclusive cultural activity. Nationalities other than British do not dance like this. Having said that, Morris Dancing has a lot of integration of various cultures (dances) in it. Richard Sennett talks about this inclusivity in his book Together: The Rituals, Pleasure and the Politics of Cooperation (2012). He compares the American culture with the European culture. The American culture has more boundaries in it than the Europeans’. The right-wing talk on American radio is a classic example of this rigidity. It is normal to curse homosexual married couples, Nazi feminists, secular humanists and even socialists on radio (Sennett, 2012). The European culture is more tolerant of such class of people. According to Sennett (2012) Europe has also seen its share of rigid social boundaries. Europe was an intensely tribal society during the first half of the 20th century. People were averse to getting along with those who differed from their opinion. However, this tribal behaviour was coaxed in nationalism. The European folklore has been closely associated with national tradition. Morris Dancing has somewhat acquired the status of folklore. “The 19th century folklorists could easily define their disciplinary boundaries in class and regional terms.” (Forrest, 1999, p. 361) The social boundaries in Europe could be seen in Morris Dancing because it was a representation of the rural lower classes. Strictly speaking the British folklore was a study of traditions, habits and customs in the rural peasantry. Thus, by definition folklore dances (including Morris Dancing) were confined in a boundary. Even though it was an expression of peasantry feelings of joy, it was strictly English and strictly rural. The efforts of growing boundaries around a field can be smudged off by a dialectical approach to performance arts. Forrest (1999) talks about Morris Dancing in his book The History of Morris Dancing (1999) through a new vision of folklore. His attempt is not to draw boundaries around it. A healthy functioning society exists because of diversity. Monotonous lifestyles lead to melancholia and mundane routines. Jo Littler mentions Prime Minister David Cameron’s words that it is the toxic culture of low expectations that had held this (British) nation back (Littler, 2013). It was probably Aristotle that first thought about repressive unity. He gave his notion of the city as a synoikismos (Sennett, 2012); a place where people of diverse family tribes come together. Each tribe brings their own history, culture, gods, property and other allegiances. This diversity is necessary for trade and mutual support. Otherwise, harmony will cease to exist. Similar people cannot create a city. Diverse ethnicities and tribes create them. A city is the oldest but the most modern habitat known to mankind (DeFazio, 2011). But they are also criticized for they represent the basest human instincts (Zukin, 1995). Therefore it becomes necessary for people to get along with other tribes. Social boundaries, distinctions and social classes are usually invented by the elite of the society. The social hierarchy and their respective festivities have their customary boundaries for desirable behaviour. There is a reason why the elite put a limit to the inclusiveness to any social activity or a cultural festivity like Morris Dancing. As mentioned in the introduction of this essay that the definitions of culture and arts are evolutionary. They are constantly evolving. Different events in the world shape and change cultures. For instance “if the Medic Wars confirmed the city’s existence then the Philippic Wars ruined it.” (Carbonell, 2003, p. 18). A direct analogy from evolutionary biology can help understand about the evolution of morris dancing. Morris dancing in the Welsh borders is defused and subsequently evolved. This evolutionary change has been brought on by local factors (Forrest, 1999). The striking similarity between biological organisms and ceremonial traditional dances is highly relevant. The concept of British heritage is also critically analysed in Stuart Halls Whose Heritage? Unsettling the Heritage, Reimagining the Post Nation in the book The Politics of Heritage and Legacy of Race (2005) by Jo Littler and Roshi Naidoo. Halls chapter starts with introducing the multicultural Britain that has been emerging since the World War II. It is not just the wars of the 20th century that have shaped Britains culture. Wars throughout history have influenced folklore and tradition. The use of sticks and swords in Morris Dancing is evidence of these influence. Morris dancing became a representation of different things to different people. To many people it became an iconic cultural expression of the ideological struggles between Puritans and the loyalists, which eventually turned into the Civil War (Forrest, 1999). For both sides Morris Dancers became a symbol of rebellion. British folklore is presented as a resilient phenomenon specifically related with the rural areas (Carbonell, 2012). Hall shows his perplexity in comprehending the term heritage. According to him the term has been overused. The most common way to understand heritage is that it is the complex of organizations and practices to preserve and present culture and arts. The British version of heritage is specific to preserving what already exists instead of producing or circulating new work in different media (Hall, 2005). The latter has secondary importance. The reason for such fascination with the past is because it has fantastical importance. The past is powerful. And as time moves on, the oldest becomes more powerful. In a way past is immortal and all powerful. The reason for non-participation in Morris Dancing is not because people have started to disrespect it. It is because it does not fit into the 21st century British culture. They also dont want to disrespect it by completely forgetting it. Consequently, it has become a symbol of British heritage and culture. Sometimes it is exaggerated to the level of patriotism. The British concept of heritage has a specific inflection; the words and artefacts have some value primarily in relation to the past (Hall, 2005). This notion indicates what makes the spirit of a nation. This heritage turns into the representation of tradition, which turns it into the lexicon of virtues. Hall (2005) is not against this ideology of heritage or culture. He supports striking a balance between producing culture and arts as a living activity, and conserving the past simultaneously. In contrast, the Ghent Urban Studies Team, Meyer et al. (1999) gives a view of Manhattan. The city of Manhattan is an embodiment of a modern metropolis that has played a significant role in the collective imagination of the art world. The thing that makes it distinct is its absence from architectural theories of modernism (Meyer et al. 1999). For instance the modernist ideologies are different than reality. In other words when a theory is turned into reality it is considerably different from the theory. This analogy can be applied to Morris Dancing. When the same interpretation of the dance, its meaning, and its importance is applied in the 21st century, the reality is different. The first half of the 20th century with the big city life was often considered a product of stimulation and irritability (Meyer et al. 1999). It was probably because of the same rigidity in the boundaries that kept others out. The society and culture thrived on the notions of polarity. Narratives were formed based on differences in culture. Nationalism was often misunderstood with patriotism. Iconic figures like William Wallace, Gandhi, and even Hitler were hard-core patriots in their own realm. However, they were nationalists. In many movements across Europe the link between art performance and national endeavours was evident. Any attempt to draw the line between folklore and patriotism/nationalism was thwarted with ferocity. People had turned folk traditions into patriotic symbols. For these reasons Morris Dancing has a limit to its level of inclusiveness. It is from this thinking that the culture of modernism has evolved that understands how different ethnicities, ideologies and cultures contribute to a collective culture of the city. This diversity defines a city. Urban culture is sometimes considered a symbol of modernity by many historians. It is without a doubt an important explanatory tool for historical caesuras in art history (Meyer et al. 1999). Although technology plays a vital role in it however, the basic human psychology plays the decisive role. An experiment performed at the UKs leading dance house Sadler’s Wells’, highlights the human behaviour in terms of cultural setting. The management of the dance house conducted an experiment in 2011. There were 200 participants that created a new dance routine known as ‘Sum of Parts’. The project was evaluated against ‘The Five Days to Well-Being’ (Hackett & Lidstone, 2012). The results show how people come together when they find something common in a dance routine. These behaviours are instilled in the minds of younger generation by the information they get from their environment. The question arises why cultural learning is so important for children? Cultural knowledge enables them to establish a sense of self (Cultural Learning Alliance, 2010). This way they acquire better knowledge of communities around them and broaden their imagination. Museums and art galleries are places to display artworks from the past and present. They open new horizons for students and children. Such places form a connection between the past and the new generation. It is not only art exhibitions in museums that bridge this gap. Holding live events such as the Morris Dancing Day also accomplish this. But apparently that is not enough. There is a gradual decline in Morris Dancing membership. The people participating in these dances have an average age of 50. The young generation is almost cut off from actively participating in this cultural dance. Hence, it makes more sense why this dance is considered antique and attached with patriotism. It is not a matter of including or participating, the dance and the props have become too old-fashioned for the young British citizens. They would like go to a nightclubs and dance to trans and techno music than to medieval instruments. Despite being old-fashioned cultural learning is also a way for young generation to understand where they stand in space and time. Morris Dancers use equipment and props that were typical of the servant class reminding everyone that they belonged to the peasantry culture. It is another way of educating people. Imaginatively exploring social conflicts and moral dilemmas in confronting challenges are some of the primary goals of culture learning (Cultural Learning Alliance, 2010). It also means that cultural learning is not a passive activity. The inspiration these children get from museum can inspire them in their own artworks. It is this participation that nurtures culture and tradition. Change is inevitable and necessary. It brings variety in the artwork. Changes in one aspect of dance routines causes evolutionary changes in others. Moving from churchyards to villages was an evolutionary step in the Morris Dancing culture. Sometimes the dance routine is the same but the changes in audiences completely change the scenario. Servants used to dance for their masters but when villagers started dancing for their fellow villagers the whole scenario changed. The 21st century has shaped cultures all around the world dramatically. There are participants in this explosion of social media who watch do-it-yourself videos on YouTube. There are those who actively engage online through their comments on blog posts. And there are those who advertise themselves on MySpace pages shouting out their identities across the world (Turner, 2009). What was unattainable and unthinkable in the last century is now easier. The fantasies have found some version of reality into the peoples lives. The changes in technology and time have their impact on cultural diversity and practices. However, one aspect can never be ignored. The economy can almost dictate the culture of a nation. Its impact is not only visible in the poor Third World countries. In the developed world the inequality of wealth is also evident. London is considered the most ‘unequal city’ in the developed world (Holden, 2010). This inequality was also evident in the history of Morris Dancing. The economic changes in the status of farmers and peasants was reflected in their dance performances. Holden (2010) differentiates different classes of people in London. He gives an infrastructure of how the cultural hierarchy operates in England. The oligarchic culture is poles apart with the democratic culture. There are cultural snobs, neo-mandarins and new cosmopolitans. On the contrary modern culture is entirely different. As mentioned earlier there are people who actively engage on social media posting their comments and shouting out their opinions. This form of cultural experience is almost all inclusive. Anyone in the world can contribute to an online debate or activity. However, there is one side of culture that is socially unjust. It is not about the nonparticipation that limits peoples participation in cultural activities, it is exclusion. Exclusion and nonparticipation should not be confused, they are not alternatives. Holden (2010) adds to his notion that in addition to exclusion from social, political and economic systems, people can be excluded from cultural systems too. Usually it is considered that people do not take part in such activities out of their free will. The real question is how free are they in this choice? Probably it is for the reasons of cultural boundaries that people do not participate in Morris Dancing. The dance is exclusively British and exclusively nationalist. The flexibility is the reason why different tribes coexist even in the modern cities. The reason why cultural differences exist is because that is how nature has shaped humans. There is always a South to someone elses North (Woodward, 1997). The ‘other’ always exists which is different from ‘us’ (Woodward, 1997). We do not share ‘otherness’ in the metropolitan centres. Each group or tribe has already negotiated their political economic and cultural dependency differently (Woodward, 1997). This is the difference that is already imprinted in cultural identities across the globe. It is for this reason people have different classes. Latin American people different from the Haitians, Jamaicans, Cubans and Guadalupeans (Woodward, 1997). This difference defines every individuals cultural identity. This is only a classification about different nationalities or cultures but within each culture there are more boundaries. The most visible is the urban versus the rural. The matter of urban culture has been under scholarly debates. For instance urban sociologists have several theories about the culture of cities. The city culture stands different from the urban not only as a study object but also in theory and method (Stevenson, 2003). The research so far has focused on different fronts that tried to define and quantify urbanism. The relationship between society and city is of paramount importance. With the development of urban culture, rural and folk activities have faded. Morris Dance has also fell into oblivion. It is no wonder that since the 1970s the cities have turned into a source of fascination for the outsiders. Especially the one who live urban lives and traditions. The cultural theorists are also deeply fascinated by the city culture because it is lived rather than followed on structures and patterns (Stevenson, 2003). Cultural traditions like Morris Dancing follow structure and pattern. It is the law of nature that without adaptability anything will cease to exist. The city culture offers participation and inclusivity. Nina Simon in her book The Participate Tree Museum (2010) talks about the importance of participation in how it transforms a culture and tradition of the society. She differentiates between the traditional institution and a participatory institution. The former is a one-way traffic of information; from authority to the people (Simon, 2010). From this Perspective Morris dancing is organized by traditional institutes. Participatory projects are those that support multidirectional content experiences (Simon, 2010). The institution is not an authority here. It is a platform connecting different users. These users can be consumers, critics, distributors, collaborators or content creators. But it also offers a drawback that the institution does not guarantee the consistency of visitor experience. Participation means that the visitor needs to define his/her own level of participation and experience. Morris Dancing is not participatory but it offers consistent experience. From the debate above it is evident that Morris Dancing is noninclusive and non-participatory to a great extent. Its rigidity and its institutional organization has become its own enemy. The dance started out as a form of entertainment but turned into patriotic symbols and nationalistic gestures. Instead of adapting to new ways and welcoming people from all cultures, nationalities and ethnicities, it stuck to its roots. People have found comfort in exaggerating its nationalistic side. As a result its artistic, cultural and aesthetic importance is fading away. References 1. Cultural Learning Alliance. 2011. Imagine Nation: the case for Cultural Learning. Open access, online http://www.culturallearningalliance.org.uk/userfiles/files/FINAL_ImagineNation_The_Case_for_Cultural_Learning.pdf 2. Duncan, Carol and Alan Wallach, 2010. ‘The Universal Survey Museum’ in Bettina Carbonnel. Museum Studies: An Anthology of Contexts. Wiley. pp46-61 3. Extract from E. Belfiore and O. Bennett. 2010. The social impact of the arts: an intellectual history, Palgrave. pp. 1-35 4. Turner, G. 2009. Ordinary People and the Media: The Demotic Turn. Sage. pp. 1-32 5. Forrest, John. 1999. The history of Morris Dancing. University of Toronto Press. 6. Ghent Urban Studies Team. 1999. ‘Recent Transformation on Urban Public Space’ in The Urban Condition: space, community, and self in the contemporary metropolis, 010 Publishers http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=-vbTkMuU9NkC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false 7. Hall, Stuart ‘Whose Heritage?’ in Littler and Naidoo. 2005. The Politics of Heritage Routledge. pp. 21-31 8. M. Heaney, 2004. ‘The Earliest Reference to the Morris Dance?’ Folk Music Journal, vol. 8, no. 4. pp. 513-515 9. Holden, John. 2010. Culture and Class. Counterpoint. Open-access pdf online. http://www.bluedrum.ie/documents/CultureAndClassStandard.pdf 10. DeFazio, Kimberly. 2011. ‘Introduction: The City of Exchange and the Senses’ in The City of the Senses. [Online] Available at: http://0-www.palgraveconnect.com.wam.city.ac.uk/pc/doifinder/10.1057/9780230370357  11. Lidstone, G. and Hackett, J. 2012. Sum of Parts: An Evaluation Goldsmith’s ICCE. Open access, online http://www.theguardian.com/higher-education-network/blog/2012/may/02/sadlers-wells-goldsmiths-university-shape-arts 12. Littler, Jo. 2013. ‘Meritocracy as Plutocracy’ in New Formations 80-1. pp. 52-72. Open access, online http://www.lwbooks.co.uk/journals/newformations/pdfs/nf8081_littler.pdf 13. Naidoo, Roshi. 2011. ‘Never mind the buzzwords’ in Littler and Naidoo (eds) (2005) The Politics of Heritage Routledge. 14. Price, R. 1999. British society 1680-1880; Dynamism, containment and change. Cambridge University Press. 15. Sennett, Richard. 2012. Together. Allen Lane. pp. 3-34 16. Stevenson, Deborah. 2003. ‘Cities of Difference: inequality, marginalization and fear’ in Cities and Urban Cultures, Open University Press. pp32-53 17. Woodward, Kathryn. 1997. ‘Concepts of Identity and Difference’ in Identity and Difference. Sage, pp7-62 http://www4.ncsu.edu/~mseth2/com417s12/readings/IdentityDifference.pdf 18. Zukin, Sharon. 1995. ‘The Mystique of Public Culture’ in The Cultures of Cities, Blackwell. pp259-294 Read More