Defining dance as “folk dance” appears straightforward, suggesting a specific dance style, performance, or distinguishing features rooted in a particular community. It should tell us about the dance itself and its performers. However, the term “folk dance,” popular since the late 19th century, much like “folklore” coined earlier, carries complexities and historical baggage. These complexities arise largely from the perspectives and agendas of early scholars and their audiences, particularly when viewed from a non-Western context such as India’s rich dance traditions, including what is known as “Janapada Dance.”
Historically, the term “folk” was often employed by those who positioned themselves outside of “the folk,” confidently defining who belonged to this category. These observers frequently depicted folk communities with a sense of superiority, labeling them as peasants or quaint, unsophisticated, and uneducated people clinging to ancient, simplistic traditions. They proposed that “authentic” folk dances originated anonymously and were passed down through generations by word of mouth. Many 19th and early 20th-century scholars even envisioned a Darwinian-like social evolution, progressing from imagined origins through existing folk dances to modern recreational dances. This viewpoint, losing favor by the 1930s, was part of a broader worldview that unfortunately placed certain groups on a lower rung of human evolution compared to the scholars themselves.
Circle of Maypole Dancers Interweaving Ribbons, England
A detailed 19th-century illustration depicting a traditional Maypole dance from England, showcasing dancers in a circle formation skillfully interweaving ribbons around the pole, highlighting the communal and historical aspects often associated with folk dances.
Unsurprisingly, this condescending approach led to a backlash. Since the mid-20th century, the term “folk” has often been avoided due to its perceived negative connotations. Many cultural groups globally resisted having their performing arts categorized under this term. Consequently, numerous institutions and organizations opted to replace “folk” with “traditional.” For instance, Indiana University’s Folk Music Archives became the Archives of Traditional Music in the 1960s. Similarly, the International Folk Music Council, supported by UNESCO, rebranded itself as the International Council for Traditional Music in 1980, expanding its dance study section from folk dance to ethnochoreology—the study of all dance forms within a culture.
While many contemporary academics avoid “folk” due to its problematic history and potential to offend, those who still use it often equate it with “traditional,” “authentic,” or “from older times.” Those wary of portraying culture as static tend to avoid such definitive labels altogether.
The terms “traditional” and “authentic” also become complicated when applied to folk dances deliberately created, revived, and staged for public consumption to strengthen national identity, attract tourism, or both. Examples include performances by groups like the Bayanihan Philippine National Folk Dance Company and numerous folklórico groups from Mexico. Furthermore, “traditional” struggles to encompass dances transplanted across contexts, like European folk dances performed by the Matachines Society of the Yaqui Indians in the United States and Mexico. Nor does it easily describe fusions of folk dances from multiple cultures forming new traditions in newly established communities, such as multicultural Israeli folk dances or the blended traditions of the Métis of Canada.
Operationalizing “Janapada Dance”
Crucially, understanding “janapada dance” requires recognizing that “folk dance” is not a universal dance genre. Comparing folk dances across cultures reveals no shared universal movement, figure, form, style, or function. Conversely, no specific movement, figure, form, style, or function inherently defines a dance as a folk dance. A simplistic definition might state that folk dances are those performed by folk dancers and identified as such. By extension, folk dancers are those who perform folk dances.
However, these circular definitions are insufficient. Some performers of dances labeled as folk dances by outsiders do not identify their dances as “folk dances.” Similarly, some performers do not consider themselves “folk dancers.” Others reject the term “folk” entirely, deeming it irrelevant to their identity and dances. This is particularly relevant when considering “Janapada dance” in the Indian context. “Janapada,” referring to a region or countryside in Indian languages, suggests dances of the people, from the regions. These are often deeply rooted in local traditions, rituals, and community life, carrying less of the Western historical baggage associated with “folk dance.”
The Matachines dances, as mentioned in the original article, exemplify the fluidity of “folk dance” definitions. The Yaqui Indian Matachines Society practices medieval European folk dances taught by Jesuit missionaries, yet they do not categorize their dances as “folk dances” nor themselves as “folk dancers.” Outsiders, however, readily apply these labels. Similarly, across India, various “Janapada dances” exist, each with unique histories, forms, and community significance. What one region considers a “Janapada dance” might differ vastly from another, highlighting the importance of local context over a rigid, universal definition of “folk dance.”
In conclusion, when discussing “janapada dance,” it’s vital to move beyond simplistic, potentially Eurocentric definitions of “folk dance.” Instead, we should focus on understanding these dances within their specific cultural and regional contexts in India. “Janapada dance” encompasses a vast and diverse range of Indian traditional dances that are integral to community identity and expression, demanding a nuanced and culturally sensitive approach, rather than a rigid application of Western-derived definitions of “folk dance.”
