Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T04:22:25.401Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Feminist Theory Across the Millennial Divide

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 July 2014

Extract

Every so often I receive a request to anthologize my 1987 article, “The Balanchine Woman: Of Hummingbirds and Channel Swimmers” (Daly 1987), in which I used the feminist theory of the male gaze to analyze a prototypical pas de deux. So far, I have declined each one, or proposed that the article be published in tandem with “Dance History and Feminist Theory: Reconsidering Isadora Duncan and the Male Gaze,” a 1992 essay that critiqued the very theory that had enabled the earlier work (Daly 1992). While I am grateful that “Hummingbirds” made a meaningful contribution to our understanding of how feminist theory could be a useful framework for dance scholarship, I also appreciate that both feminist theory and dance studies have come a long, long way since the groundbreaking paradigm of the male gaze.

When I wrote “Hummingbirds,” feminist theory was the most creative, rigorous, and productive discourse around. It articulated what had emerged as the fundamental issue of twentieth-century arts and humanities: representation. Feminist theory infused dance studies with a fresh, compelling set of questions that were quickly taken up, especially by younger scholars, critics, and artists. We were challenged to shift our angle of vision and expand the field of our vision. As a result, our critical acuity was honed, the dancing we chose to study became more inclusive, dialogue was opened with other disciplines, and dance literature as a whole grew more incisive, complex, and engaged.

But no question, framework, or theory ever remains fixed. I began to question the theory of the male gaze almost as soon as “Hummingbirds” was published. When I attempted to adapt the model to my historical research on Isadora Duncan, I bumped up against its limits, which led me to other theories and more questions. It also led me to critique the then flourishing “success-or-failure” brand of feminist criticism, whose brittle, reductive analyses were not only unconvincing scholarship but problematic politics as well. So I wrote “Dance History and Feminist Theory” as a companion piece to “Hummingbirds.”

Type
Trends in Dance Scholarship
Copyright
Copyright © Congress on Research in Dance 2000

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bernstein, Charles. “Artifice of Absorption.” In A Poetics. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1992: 9-89.Google Scholar
Daly, Ann. “Mellower Now, A Resolute Romantic Keeps Trying.” The New York Times (31 October 1999), sec. 2: 31.Google Scholar
Daly, Ann. “‘Woman,’ Women, and Subversion: Nagging Questions from a Dance Historian.” Choreography and Dance 5, part 1 (1998): 79-86.Google Scholar
Daly, Ann. Done Into Dance: Isadora Duncan in America. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1995.Google Scholar
Daly, Ann. “Dance History and Feminist Theory: Reconsidering Isadora Duncan and the Male Gaze.” In Gender in Performance. Edited by Senelick, Laurence. Hanover, NH: University Press of New England, 1992.Google Scholar
Daly, Ann. “The Balanchine Woman: Of Hummingbirds and Channel Swimmers.” The Drama Review 31, no. 1 (T113, spring 1987): 8-21.Google Scholar
Daly, Ann. “Response to ‘Tanztheater’: The Thrill of the Lynch Mob or the Rage of a Woman?The Drama Review 30, no. 2 (TUO, summer 1986): 54-56.Google Scholar