Developmental Process and Methodological Foundation
The interview and evaluation methods were developed by dance scholar and curator Elisa Ricci. The guidelines were developed by way of an extensive dialogical process within the broader team, with a focus on accessibility, critiquing discrimination, and perspectives that are critical of hierarchies of power. Thematic foci of the guidelines are 1) capabilities and weaknesses of dance education and outreach; 2) currently existing forms of structural discrimination; 3) visions for a “Tanzvermittlungszentrum” in Berlin. These topics were discussed in depth with the interviewees during the lab that took place on 26 February 2021 (see above).
Interviewees
The interview was specifically targeted at experts in the field of (dance) education and outreach.
The interviewees are An Boekman, Angela Alves, Athina Lange, Be van Vark, Bahar Meric, Chang Nai Wen, Christoph Winkler, Diana Thielen, Esmir Srdanovic, Eva-Maria Hörster, Georgina Philipp, Jo Parkes, Joy. C. Alpuerto Ritter, Laura Werres, Lea Martini, Livia Patrizi, Maren Witte, Marie Yan, Martina Kessel, Medhat Aldaabal, Nora Amin, Rajyashree Ramesh, Robert Segner, Ron Rosenberg, Sophia Neises, Sven Seeger, and Teo Vlad.
The experts in question are active in a number of different capacities, including as freelance artists, choreographers and teachers, curators, dance scholars, stakeholders, and representatives of institutions (Marameo, Hochschulübergreifendes Zentrum Tanz, Mobile Dance, Raumlaborberlin, Zeitgenössischer Tanz Berlin e.V., Chance Tanz, Theater Fratz, Maxim Gorki Theater, LAFT Berlin, TanzZeit).
The interviewees were selected via a process conducted within the broader team, the aim of which was to strike a balance between “contemporary dance” institutions, initiatives and stakeholders from urban dance cultures, organisations that place a focus on dance and social work, and practitioners of dance styles that are not represented in “contemporary dance” institutions (for example, raqs sharqi, baladi dance, various styles of Indian dance).
Evaluation Methodology
The evaluation is based on a transverse, collective reading process conducted within the team (steering group and Elisa Ricci) and on a system of coding using qualitative evaluation methods adapted for dance research (Elisa Ricci).
The ideas and suggestions outlined in the evaluation are shared knowledge in the sense that they emerged from a participatory process involving the steering group, the broader team, and the interviewees.
Evaluation based on main themes
1) STATUS QUO: Weaknesses and Capabilities
Dance education and outreach is generally regarded as the driving force behind structural change in the sense of critically engaging with forms of discrimination – a change that is emerging in both the dance world and the broader art world, and is already underway in certain areas.
There are a number of excellent options for dance educators and practitioners in Berlin, but there are still some gaps that need to be filled: for example, services for people with disabilities, for adults, and for older people. The interaction and exchange between dance educators with and without disabilities needs to be strengthened and promoted on a professional level, and the same is true for education and training opportunities for dance educators both with and without disabilities.
An overall lack of consistency was identified by participants on the level of funding, both for areas that already boast excellent models, and for areas that still have room for expansion. It is vital for the continued evolution of dance education, dance transmission and outreach work – which also has the potential to effect societal change – that long-term funding be ensured, and thus also the capacity to support projects over a period of many years: not only the number of participants, but also – and most importantly – how long they can be involved in the projects in question is a key factor when it comes to ensuring access to education and culture.
Precarious working conditions arising from work conducted on a project-by-project basis were also cited as an issue for freelancers. Similarly, respondents also cited an inequitable distribution of resources, in particular between large and small institutions.
Fragmentation was seen by some to be a strength in the sense that it could engender heterogeneity, but it was perceived by others as a weakening element. It would appear that fragmentation is perceived as a weakening element in cases where it degenerates into hierarchical divisions between different fields: for example, the rift that is perceived as hierarchical that exists between the institutions of “contemporary dance” and the social-work initiatives operating in the dance world; the same can be said of the evidently hierarchical distinction between artistic creation and projects produced in the context of dance and theatre education, as well as between academic dance institutions and self-taught dancers and dance educators.
Fragmentation and a lack of proper coordination go hand in hand with a reduction in the visibility of dance education and outreach, compared with education options in the field of visual arts and theatre of the spoken word, for example. This lack of visibility is further compounded by the inconsistent provision of free, accessible services in public spaces, which should be supported. Expanding free, publicly accessible services has the potential to ensure equal access for all those who are interested.
Structural discrimination can also be found in the field of dance education and outreach. Forms of dance that are labelled as non-artistic are excluded, such as circle dances, urban dance styles, and dances that are considered traditional (as opposed to “contemporary dance”). Respondents saw an urgent need for the concepts of both dance and art to be expanded.
The representation of perspectives that are generally structurally discriminated against is lacking at the leadership level. For example, leadership positions are in some instances occupied by non-disabled people, even within formats that purport to be inclusive. This clearly also pertains to other forms of marginalisation resulting from race- and gender-based discrimination. The issue of class also underpins and amplifies the aforementioned forms of discrimination, both at the level of access to professionalised services and that of reception.
2) VISIONS: Change / Strategies
On the whole, there was a clear indication among respondents that they wished to see change in the form of eliminating the existing fragmentation.
Partnerships were repeatedly cited as an appropriate strategy for overturning the fragmentary status quo: partnerships that transcend national borders; with institutions outside of the dance world (for example, beekeepers’ associations, urban gardening); partnerships between institutions in the social, cultural, and education sectors; partnerships with institutions for elderly people, centres for mothers and children, physiotherapy practices, institutions for refugees, institutions offering trauma therapy.
Having the capacity and opportunity to work on partnerships on a long-term basis should be viewed as a privilege; this is something that smaller initiatives are not able to do in the long term. Partnerships should also be continually renegotiated according to the needs of all parties involved.
Concrete, overarching visions for a potential future “Tanzvermittlungszentrum” indicate a desire among respondents for decentralised forms of action and were expressed for example in the following ways: “the centre as a site or series of sites for coming together”; “(ce)centre as in not attached to one institution (…) located in an area that is not well served by dance opportunities”; “a de-centralized platform”; “a network that is not made up of closed, specific teams”; “a bus that is flexible and not tied to a single location, combined with a stationary office and several locations such as rehearsal spaces and studio theatres.” The potential future “Tanzvermittlungszentrum” was also referred to by interviewees as a concrete location encompassing a multiplicity of perspectives. In order to ensure this multiplicity in the long term, leadership roles and curatorial positions could be changed on a regular basis, for example; facilitators from the most disparate dance scenes could develop a truly representative, diverse programme for an audience.
There was a strong common desire expressed by participants for equity and defragmentation, especially on a conceptual level; interviewees repeatedly cited the need to dismantle existing Eurocentric definitions and categorisations of forms of dance. Ultimately, the idea here is to open up and decolonise the concept of dance – to remove labels that are historically defined and function in a hierarchical and discriminatory manner.
Ultimately, what is being striven for is an intersectionally conceived form of equality in the sense of inclusiveness and diversity. Concrete examples of this include deaf and hearing artists meeting on an equal footing, without it being seen as something exceptional that deaf people are also able to dance; another specific example concerns the need to broaden the concept of dance so that dances that are read in connection with a particular culture (for example, with Arab culture) are also read as dance and art as a matter of course. In order to accomplish this, there are a series of complex steps and processes that need to be consistently promoted in the long term; however, what is most important and pressing here is the need for stakeholders in the field of dance education, transmission and outreach to critically examine their own practice with regard to the reproduction of stereotypes and Eurocentric perspectives and content. In this respect, participants expressed a desire for short- and long-term education and training for those involved in the field of dance education, transmission and outreach in order to help reduce discrimination and eliminate stigmas and barriers. Further strategies for overcoming structural discrimination and the ensuing forms of marginalisation are aimed at strengthening and promoting existing services, practices, forms of dance, and forms of expression – both where they occur and in the potential future sites of the “Tanzvermittlungszentrum”. In both cases it seems to be of crucial importance that the dance educators involved from these areas are afforded a degree of decision-making power when they participate. The representation of stakeholders who are generally structurally discriminated against at the leadership level is essential here.
Prospects for the Future
The participants contributed an abundance of approaches, expertise, and ideas that we are unfortunately unable to present here in its entirety. A more in-depth analysis of the data in question that aims to elaborate visions and realise them in concrete terms is both necessary and very much welcome. Further roundtable discussions could be conducted with experts from the group of interviewees, with the goal of planning specific measures or particular aspects. The contents of the interviews, which are summarised here on a macro level, constitute the basis for further stages and topics of the conceptual development process. Suggestions raised by the interviewees – such as visions of fostering a productive connection between research and dance education/outreach, as well as specific strategies for eliminating structural discrimination, which could not be addressed in detail here – will continue to be incorporated into the process.