The term “folk dance” seems straightforward at first glance, suggesting a specific category of dance with unique characteristics, styles, and performers. However, delving deeper reveals that “folk dance,” much like its umbrella term “folklore,” is a complex and often debated concept, particularly when considering its historical context and evolving interpretations. The term, popularized in the late 19th century, carries a history shaped by the perspectives of early scholars and their audiences, perspectives that were not always neutral or universally accepted.
Historically, the label “folk” was often applied by those who positioned themselves outside of what they considered the “folk.” These observers often viewed folk communities through a lens of condescension, portraying them as simple, uneducated peasants clinging to unsophisticated, ancient traditions. “True” Folk Dances, according to this view, were believed to be anonymously created and passed down through generations by word of mouth and practice. Nineteenth and early 20th-century scholars sometimes even envisioned a social evolution, placing folk dances as a stepping stone between primitive origins and modern recreational dances. This perspective, largely discredited by the 1930s, reflected a broader, sometimes prejudiced worldview that ranked different groups of people along an imagined evolutionary scale.
Maypole danceThis condescending view led to a significant backlash. By the mid-20th century, the term “folk” became increasingly problematic due to its association with these outdated and disrespectful attitudes. Many cultural groups worldwide actively resisted having their artistic expressions categorized as “folk.” Consequently, numerous institutions and organizations opted to replace “folk” with “traditional” in their names. For instance, the Folk Music Archives at Indiana University became the Archives of Traditional Music in the 1960s. Similarly, the International Folk Music Council, supported by UNESCO, transitioned to the International Council for Traditional Music in 1980. This shift also influenced dance studies, with the field expanding from “folk dance” to ethnochoreology, encompassing the study of all dance forms within a culture.
While many contemporary academics avoid the term “folk” due to its problematic history and potential for offense, those who still use it often equate it with “traditional,” “authentic,” or “from older times.” However, scholars wary of portraying culture as static may refrain from using any such fixed labels.
The terms “traditional” and “authentic” also present challenges when applied to folk dances that are consciously developed, revived, or restaged for public performance. These performances often serve to strengthen national identity, attract tourism, or both. Examples abound, such as the performances by the Bayanihan Philippine National Folk Dance Company and the numerous folklórico groups representing Mexico. Furthermore, “traditional” struggles to encompass dances that have been transplanted from one cultural setting to another, like the European folk dances performed by the Matachines Society of the Yaqui Indians in the United States and Mexico. Nor do these terms easily capture the fusion of folk dance elements from multiple cultures into new forms that represent emerging multicultural communities, such as Israeli folk dances and the blended traditions of the Métis people in Canada. These examples illustrate the dynamic and evolving nature of dance traditions, moving beyond simple categorization.
Defining Folk Dance: An Operational Approach
A crucial point in understanding folk dance is recognizing that it is not a universal dance genre with consistent characteristics across all cultures. Comparing folk dances from different parts of the world reveals no shared universal movement vocabulary, formations, structures, styles, or functions. Conversely, no single movement, formation, style, or function definitively marks a dance as a folk dance. A seemingly straightforward approach to defining folk dance might be to say they are dances identified with and performed by folk dancers, and folk dancers are those who perform folk dances.
However, these circular definitions prove inadequate. Some communities who perform dances that external observers might classify as folk dances do not themselves use the term “folk dance.” Similarly, some performers of these dances do not identify as “folk dancers.” Others entirely reject the term “folk,” finding it irrelevant to their identities and dance practices.
The matachines dances offer a compelling illustration of the fluidity of “folk dance” and “folk dancer” definitions. The Yaqui Indian Matachines Society, based in northern Mexico and southern Arizona, maintains a sacred vow to perform devotional dances for the Virgin Mary. These dances are derived from medieval European folk dances introduced to them after 1617 by Jesuit missionaries. Yet, the Yaqui people do not categorize their dances as folk dances, nor do they consider themselves folk dancers, even though external observers frequently apply these labels. While other matachines dances across the Americas share similar origins, the dances themselves have diversified and evolved differently. Adding further complexity, matachines folk dance groups exist in parts of Europe, bearing no direct connection to the Yaqui society or other American groups. The essence of these dances, the identities of the performers, and the terminology used by both insiders and outsiders all vary, even when the dances share a common name. This highlights the importance of understanding the context and perspective when discussing and defining folk dances.
