I am constantly amazed at how often the issue of "lead" and "follow" becomes a matter of feminist debate in Tango, and how frequently these calls for "equality" regarding this torment are cried.
For almost as long as I've been dancing Tango, I have been witness to countless arguments and discussions about "leading" and "following" (which I personally prefer to call "lead" and "follow", because these terms addresses the action and not the person), and how these two basic concepts of movement have been corrupted and over-intellectualized in our politically-correct-obsessed cultures to become symbolic of some repression conspiracy and something meaning "more than" or "less than" someone else.
As if these two opposite actions could exist independently of each other within the context of normal social intercourse, and especially of dance, and most especially of tango.
There is a reason Tango is so magical, enduring, and expanding, and I am certain that it is mostly due to this formidably archetypal distinction between "lead" and "follow" (meant to describe the opposite movements, and not the traditional roles of men and women). Since the entire premise of my book is about the equal validity of both "active" and passive", "male" and "female" (energy), and "leading" and "following" as expressions of those energies, I suggest anyone wanting an in depth discussion of these concepts should buy it (hint, hint).
Suffice it to say here that I find the convoluted arguments from both men and women who bristle at the notion that having to "follow" anyone is somehow a putdown of women, amazing. More often than not, these "negotiations" try to insert some form of "leading" into the formula of following, whether "passively", or "backleading", or some other fancy name. To me this says that women are not valuing their power, their contribution to the dance, making these discussions apologetic for this deficiency.
The deal is, leading and following are either/or propositions, and cannot exist without each other. Nor can they be done simultaneously, no matter how great our debating skills. We are either doing one OR the other. The good news is that the way tango is structured makes it possible for us to do BOTH, at one time OR another, within the dance. Thus, even if for very brief moments, every follow becomes a lead (and yes, every lead, a follow), before returning to our original roles. When we "muck" up these meanings and try to "leaderize" following, it is clarity - the basics of successful communication, and Tango - which suffers most.
My theory about Nuevo Tango is that it was born from this "equalization of partners" line of thinking. And it is also why I think younger generations take to it so much more than us older folks. The very concept of "absolutes" is distasteful to younger generations because it requires a total commitment towards one thing or another. In the open embrace, there is a lot more room for interpretation (and misunderstandings, IMO), which these dancers consider a more "equitable" distribution of lead/follow. You know, like every other ballroom dance. The term "lead" in this open and highly interpretive embrace, becomes more of a "suggestion", which the follow is free to "obey" (oops, is that word allowed these days?) or loosely interpret as desired.
Being of a very bossy nature in my daily life, I rather enjoy the traditional Tango "surrender" of the follow, and thoroughly indulge the lead - who tells me all I need to know about the universe while in that embrace. Which just sends me to Nirvana. This is also why I rarely dance with inexperienced leads, in case you want to know - it takes too much thinking and effort, and I find myself having to restrain from "backleading".
Some misunderstanding must surely be blamed on those "typical" poses of the woman looking up adoringly, longingly, sufferingly at her man, or the man tossing her aside like a pair of old pantyhose with a run in them. That is acting. That is steps. That is NOT the definition of "lead" and "follow", nor the roles of men and women. If, in fact, the attitudes represented in those performances were the core of Tango, I for one would not be dancing it.
There is nothing wrong with one person leading and another person following, as long as both agree to the terms of the contract while in each other's embrace. There is likewise nothing wrong with experimenting and trying new things. But I do believe it is a problem when we start trying to "fix" something that is very decidedly NOT broken. This need to reinvent both the name and the action of "following" says more about our cultural quirks than about the action itself. Especially since hardly anyone seems to be carrying on the same way about "leading".
I think anyone truly that torn up by the notion that surrender and "follow" are somehow denigrating to women, should by all means learn to lead and be done with it!
Sunday, March 9, 2008
The "PC"-fication of Tango
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
24 comments:
Hi Johanna:
I understand your opinion about the roles of leading and following. I have posted something on tangologue along those lines.
In my view, passive leading is not a form of empowering followers to make them more equal. Or anything PC (you read my blog and you can see that I am everything but PC, I have suffered and been "unofficially" been made a persona non grata from a certain place for not agreeing with someone's ideals). It's based on the fact that (as far as I see it) the dance becomes more complete if both partners have a say in (1) what's going to be done (2) what's being done and (3) how it's done.
In my opinion is also not an open embrace-specific idea. I dance mostly with close embrace (allowing open embraces for movements that generate more momentum) and I think it's a perfectly achievable feature. And so do so many dancers I have came across in my (still short, it will never be long) tanguero life.
I don't think the traditional idea of tango in what leading and follows is wrong, or by any means that the engine is broken. I do think though, that the moment new things start being created, tango will start to die. Like everything that survives the old age, evolution allows subsistence.
PS - I really don't like the term backleading. It sounds like you're leading backwards or reclaiming something back... Definitely not the idea of what I think passive leading is!
PS2 - Let it be also clear that the leader is the ultimate decision maker of the dance. The embrace is designed that way and that is a necessary thing, because it allows two people to be leading different things at the same time.
in my last sentence please read "it avoids two people to be leading different things at the same time."
Yes, KR. We take turns! I think most of the "rub" comes from semantics, more than anything. Follows MUST be allowed to contribute to the "dialogue" or it would cease to be fun :-).
It is during "contributing" that I categorize their movements as having moved briefly into the "lead" category, since if they take more than a beat, the lead is forced to wait, and thus "follow".
I do not feel adequately qualified to have a definitive opinion about open embrace dancing (not the open embrace required for certain steps in close embrace dancing). In my limited experience, the connection I feel while dancing close embrace does not exist in the more fluid, open-embrace style dancing. This does not mean I don't have fun, or that there are not bewilderlngly fabulous dancers who do this sort of dancing. But the collaborative process is much more forgiving than when you are squeezed together in close embrace.
I am not judging either style to be "better" or "worse". Simply that they are different, and that my preference is for the far "stricter" traditional arrangement. And because they are completely different, we cannot expect the strictness of close embrace to successfully apply to open embrace, any more than the easy open embrace collaboration can be exist in close embrace.
So there :-)
;-)
Three comments.
1.) I'm of the opinion that some part of clear separation of roles into lead and follow comes from the male only practica environment. When dancing in this kind of environment it has to be established beforehand who is leading and who is following because of the increased capability for both dancers to try to take control.
2.) Good, well danced, connected tango is so far beyond sexual politics that you've shot the last of the pack mules six days ago.
3.) (The tongue in cheek, facetious, answer) Men lead because they are no good at reading minds.
Welcome Limerick Tango. Sexual politics is what all this yabbering is about, which as you point out, has nothing to do with dancing.
I believe men lead because their energetic composition is primarily male/active energy (lead), with complimentary female/passive energy (follow), while women are the exact opposite. (All discussed in my book). The fact that it started out between men is irrelevant to that equation: men play team sports, where half lead and the other half follow. Even tennis is lead/follow (although very, very quickly). You are either hitting the ball (leading) or waiting for the ball (following).
This is a physiological difference between the sexes, which makes each sex better suited to certain tasks, and is not related to sexuality or fairness. These differences are not discrimination!! It is nature!! And they do not mean each gender is not be capable of doing the other's tasks. Simply that we are predisposed to be better at one than the other.
Now let's just dance!
I'm afraid I'm going to have to disagree with you on your sport analogy. Yes, if you take an instantaneous time slice it is possible to identify lead and follow elements in most sports. But these roles switch over and back between the participants as they compete for control of the game.
I came from fencing into tango and found it initially a great pressure to be constantly leading. With fencing while I have the pressure of leading when constructing an attack that pressure was lifted/shifted when my attack was foiled and I had to defend against the riposte.
Certainly it is not an exact analogy, but it does, as you agree, illustrate that in any activity, if analyzed closely enough, there is the give and take of passive/active, male/female, control/surrender exchange. Even in Tango.
And THAT was the point of my post. That there is nothing wrong, weak, or "less" with either half of the equation; neither is weaker or less "desirable". Rather, both are necessary, critical, ESSENTIAL to ANY meaningful exchange.
Though the lead is MOSTLY in control during dancing, there are moments, "instantaneous time slices" if you will, when they must surrender to the follow, who has gained control - albeit, briefly - as a direct result of a lead she has just received.
Otherwise it's just a Jerry Springer free-for-all. Or dancing with a coat rack.
Hi Johanna:
I don't think that the leader role of the man, in mechanical terms, has anything to do with dominant or less dominant energy. As you said right in the beginning of your book, some women have a dominating energy that sometimes scares men away?
I think the clear role of the leader as a leader is in the structure of the embrace, where the leader is in advantage to transmit energy due to the subtle fact that he has his arm under the follower's arm and can therefore pass on the energy. This is why there are so many females that lead and why the Macana brothers dance. I am sure that structure evolved from the "active" energy of the man but those are acheological relics that have nothing to do with tango dynamics.
Considering the role of following denigrating a stupid idea, like many others in tango. The point is that we men also want some creative input, we want to share the leading (not because we want to make it even or because a follower to be a follower has to do passive leading) but for the simple fact that, like women, men like to be lead. That's all!
On Jerry Springer free-for-alls.
In classical fencing the biggest no-no is the double hit, both fencers hitting at the same time, as the objective is to hit with out being hit. Mostly this will happen where someone attacks into an oncoming attack. Usually the blame is placed on the person who attacked into the attack. I, however, apportion blame equally stating that the original attacked failed to clearly state his attack. You must clearly establish your attack/lead to avoid contre-temps or those embarrassing "No you go first.." ends to pregnant pauses.
Equally in fencing people shy away from letting the other person find their blade to the point of automation and therefore ending up in the control of their attacker. Their are times when it is useful to let your blade be found. Yes you may be at a slight attacking disadvantage but you know where your attacker is. You may be following but the other fencer has to lead*
*Fencing is not merely about being quicker and having a lead on the other person, but is about leading them one place while you attack somewhere else. An element of deception that is missing in tango.
Koolricky, I think the "active" energy of the man has a lot to do with the tango dynamics. Therefore, I also don't think that the clear role of the leader is 'solely' in the structure of the embrace. Because, I think it's technically possible (hypothetically speaking) for the follower to lead in that embrace. Turn the couple around to see if the follower can lead by going forwards. I think this is very possible. Simply because of the "active" energy of the man, the leader goes "forward" most of the time and the follower goes "backwards" most of the time. The energy is also initiated by the leader. I believe that the embrace allows the transmission of the energy, but I do not believe that it is the sole characteristic of the roles of the leader and follower.
Also, to your first comment, "I do think though, that the moment new things start being created, tango will start to die."
I think this is outrageous. People should respect history and tradition. Yes, we must adapt to the changes over time. But we have this responsibility to preserve beautiful things from the past. Otherwise why keep those historical buildings, sights and cultural traditions and values? I believe that passive leading adds a fabulous sparkle to the modern day tango, if it works properly. I am a fan of nuevo tango and its music. But, that does not mean people should forget the origins of a form, or let it die.
To add to my first comment... Well, obviously, in addition to going forwards, the leader can initiate a sideways movement and also an invitation so that the follower moves towards him (i.e. backwards). But this stems from an active energy! Not just from the embrace!
Sorry, I should really write everything in one comment but I keep remembering things.
Embrace is static.
Energy induces dynamics.
Do I make myself clearer now?
KR, the concept of "energies" is challenging for many people. Like Supandtheress noted, and to which I agree, I do not believe the lead is in the embrace whatsoever. The embrace is the method by which we stay connected and through which information may be transmitted.
However!!!
I have done a "no embrace at all" exercise with several fabulous dancers without any confusion as to their lead.
If we think of a handshake, more often than not, one person initiates the movement - even if just a second before the other person. Whether it be a man and a woman, two men, or two women.
I'm delighted you are quoting me from my book :-) But I think this is crux of the misunderstanding:
"I could not make the conscious, spiritual leap from what passive and submissive on the earth plane meant when applied to the spiritual, universal male/female forces."
You are, in fact, referring to aggressive, masculine behavior. Not energy.
But when speaking of energy as it applies to movement, someone has to initiate the movement, and someone else has to complete that movement. HOW these movements are done is what we bring to the interaction as people, male and/or female.
As in tossing a ball. The ball-tosser is the "lead", the ball-catcher is the "follow". You need them both to play "catch".
Supantheress,
You can put each sentence into a separate comment if you wish. I don't charge by the post :-)
But yes, you hit the nail on the head. Very clear, ma'am. Energy is the most basic, molecular component of movement.
Sorry Limmerick, didn't mean to overlook your comment.
I think there are a lot of parallels between fencing and tango, but there is also at least one critical difference, which is revealed in your last sentence: there is an element of "deception" that is missing in tango.
Unlike fencing, Tango is not a contest between partners. Well, not normally... We are not trying to best each other, but instead, trying to collaborate.
But to use your fencing analogy, yes, someone has to make the first move or you just sit there doing nothing. Or alternatively, you have "double hits". The person making the first move is the lead. And in Tango, that is usually the male. Thus, "leading" is simply making the first move. Then it is up to the follow how to complete it.
Hear hear...
Thank you Alex. Unless your huzzahs were meant for someone else :-)
Hi Johanna, you're totally right. I sometimes (not in milongas) dance with no embrace and can transmit my energy as well. What I meant to say is that the tango embrace, structured the way it is, gives the advantage over who is in charge to the leader, regardless of that leader being a women or a men.
In line with your idea that women and men have different energies I find that women lead very different to men (that is something that really really interests me!). Actually, I really like to see women leading!
In the most basic sense, KR, energy is energy. But I think that the way the body transmits it is affected by the body itself. In the same way short/tall or fat/skinny dancers lead/follow, so can differences be felt corporally with male/active energy transmitted through female bodies.
As for the other, you're SUCH a guy... :-)
In response to: The "PC"-fication of Tango
Wonderful post Limmerick. The duality of the angel and the devil. In Tango as in life!
really loved this post, and the ensuing discussion. it seems i'm a bit late in commenting, but responding to supantheress and johanna: i agree that the embrace itself is not designed to facilitate leading.
a couple of times during the past month, because the milonga was dead and empty, and we were in a silly mood, my partner and i changed the embrace the other way around (me holding him as if he were following), except he was still leading. and it still worked beautifully! his lead was as crisp and energetic as ever. another leader tried it with me on an other night, and again, it worked.
technically, i think it was thanks to their torsos giving the information.... in terms of energy, their active leading was unmistakable, and regardless of changed the embrace, i was compelled to follow. it was wonderful.
(ofcourse, as a follower, i still prefer the snuggly feeling of a man's arm wrapped around me while i dance.)
johanna: hallo! :))))
Aloha Nuit!!!!
What a cool idea/exercise - to change the embrace but continue the lead/follow roles. I definitely have to try that! A bit of the rub tummy/pat head exercise...
The lead/follow exchange does not require touching of any sort. The concept of one person implementing a thought, move, concept, idea, and another person/persons executing it exists throughout life. From parades, corporations, schools, sports, etc., etc. one leads, other(s) follow(s). MOST of the time, without even touching.
The brilliance, the joy, the wonder of Tango, is that we can have that exchange with total clarity, even with (deliciously) squished up against each other. As long as we endorse the one leads/one follows hierarchy.
Post a Comment