In cultural studies, culture is considered to be a ‘zone of contestation over meaning.’ It is a place where the capacity to describe, define and label people or activities is a form of ‘cultural politics’ (Barker 2008, p.441). Choreography as a practice is involved in producing culture, and, as such, is engaged in the struggle over meaning (Hall 2013, p. 11). However choreography as a signifying practice, which conveys value through ideas and symbols, cannot make meaning within society without language. Discourse is not practice alone but practice joined to language. A practice might exist but without a language that is common to a range of groups within a socio-cultural context with which they can discuss it, it will not make sense in that context. Discourse is described
as producing objects of knowledge because it is through discourse that objects and practices become socially meaningful. The exchange of meaning through choreography between dance artists and audiences is not a simple one-way process. Symbols, signs, conventions, beliefs, texts and behaviours circulate around several sites in society. Whether these be in adverts, family traditions, school programmes, public relations offices, or political broadcasts, they play a role in how a choreography is received (Hall 2013, p11). As what we believe value and express effects the way we behave, governments are interested in culture and intervene through cultural and social policy (Bell and Oakley 2015, p.63). Discourse has the power to govern the conduct of people because people will adapt and change their behaviour in a situation in order to be understood. Discourse has the power to collectivise some and exclude others. For this reason cultural production, as an industry or sector, is therefore a zone of contestation, to use Barker’s phrase, where various parties jostle over the direction, priorities and aesthetics of the arts.
The subsidized dance profession is ever evolving. Economic agendas
increasingly impact on how artistry is expressed in dance. New histories and theories are generated so that artistic endeavours and choreographic
innovation can remain in view as especially where artistic and economic agendas become enmeshed.. Dance scholars, historians, theorists and
anthropologists have historically contributed to producing what I would describe as a choreographic discourse for theatrical dance. Through this, they keep in view the artistry of dance and dance making without which dance as art loses
its currency amidst the agendas of cultural and creative industries. Jennifer Roche, for example, theorizes the contribution of the freelance dancer to choreographic work. She found it important to bring the artistic contribution of the dancer to choreography to the fore due to the changes in dance company structures. Since the 1990s more choreographers and dancers work on a project-to-project basis. This means dancers, learn to draw on many dance styles and no longer focus on learning one dance technique or one
choreographer’s way of making dance (Roche 2015, pp. 8-9). Furthermore, flexible working conditions have led to the development of creative processes in which the dancer makes a significant contribution, which needs to be
acknowledged as part of the creative process (Roche 2015,pp. 23-24). This situation made Roche decide it was important to reconceptualise the dancer’s artistic contribution. Without interventions such as this, we would lose our sense of dance as an art as old ways of working fall away and we are left without a language to describe the new ways of working that are being formulated.
Intervention into a choreographic discourse however, is not only by academics but also administrators, publicists and artists themselves. Choreographers and dancers might intervene on their own behalf. At times choreographers reject the subject position offered them by the commercial or even the academic
discourse of the time. Discourses create subject positions for participants to take in order to participate and make sense in a discussion (Hall, 2013, p. 40). They might feel they need to create a new subject position for themselves if they are to be received in a way they consider appropriate. Ramsay Burt
discusses instances in dance history where choreographers have stepped into the writing arena to intervene and ‘create the discursive terms through which their work could be conceptualised.’ Katherine Dunham is one of his examples of a choreographer who had to do this, and he describes how she used her anthropological research to create ‘the discursive context’ for her choreography (Burt 2007, pp. 22). Not all choreographers can or want to intervene in the choreographic discourse in this way. This is why the hierarchy of writing over movement might work against the artist (Burt 2007 p.22).
One of the draws of theatrical dance for Black choreographers and dancers is that it is an influential site of cultural production. It is a place where spiritual, cultural, political and artistic ideas can be shared widely and across time. It can be used to create and sustain community and improve race relations. Also, through theatrical dance, transnational links can be formed and maintained. Theatrical dance impacts on the curriculum of higher education, creates debate about issues, attracts media attention, and engages with cultural policy. It is a way of tracing the contribution of a social group to society. Furthermore it is now an arena where social dance has cultural capital and can form the basis of a career.
One of the challenges faced by Black choreographers is an insufficient choreographic discourse. For the work of Black choreographers to make this impact, there needs to be a choreographic discourse for it. A robust discourse would include: detailed discussions of the creative processes of making dance
for stage or descriptions of how it is used in professional context; or take the form of biographies or reviews about choreographers and dancers; the analysis of term, concepts and philosophies related to practice; histories that trace
changes in practice over time and so on. For Black choreographers and dancers the struggle to develop a choreographic discourse for their work in Britain has taken place mainly in the professional context in dialogues between the representatives of Black dancers and choreographers and funding bodies and support organisations. However there is little theorisation of their work in relation to their context of production. Major contributions in this area have been Christy Adair’s Dancing the Black Question: The Phoenix Dance Company Phenomenon (2007) and Emilyn Claid’s Yes? No! Maybe…Seductive Ambiguity
in Dance (2006). Both books show that histories of dance and even practices of dance by Black choreographers in Britain cannot be conceived without
addressing the institutional context through which the work emerges. The debate in Britain over the term Black dance is an important one for
understanding how the choreographic discourse around the work of Black choreographers and dancers is developing. The use of the term ‘Black’ in cultural and artistic contexts became prominent in the 1980s.