DANCE AS A TOOL OF LEFTIST INTERNATIONALISM
A Study of the Armenian Post-Soviet Dance Revival and Its Potential Applications
Over the course of the last several decades, traditional dance in Armenia experienced an unexpected and immense revival, first under the leadership of Hayrik Muradyan and then through the late Gagik Ginosyan. Armenian dance is a living tradition whose roots can be found in prehistoric times but continues to adapt and change every single day. The modern revivalist movement is a post-Soviet reaction to the change in dance tradition from a folk-village style to a stage-artificial style under Soviet rule.
Although it is a movement that today is full of bourgeois nationalism, especially in Armenia (the Diasporan branch of this movement has adopted a more left-wing position), in reality, it is an important tool that should serve the cause of proletarian internationalism. The principles clarified and confirmed after the examination of the Armenian case are an example that can be used everywhere—adjusted, of course, to local cultural peculiarities.
Dance in the Soviet period
Most modern revivalists blame the Soviet Union for manipulating and denigrating ancient Armenian dances — this is not entirely wrong. Self-criticism being a cornerstone of effective socialist organizing, it is important to criticize the mistakes of the past, including, in this context, where they are related to culture.
Whereas dance was traditionally a group-collective activity, which was passed from generation to generation and learned naturally, Soviet Armenian authorities were eager to show the vastness of Soviet culture and the expertise of those representing it — dancers from the State Dance Ensemble. Under the direction of classically trained ballet dancers, Armenian dance underwent major balleticization.
Under this Soviet balleticization, Armenian dance, which was traditionally a practice that was learned by participating and a fundamental aspect of peasant and proletarian culture, became an elite activity performed only by those who had studied it. New fast-paced dances were invented, which later spread also to the Diaspora as a “purer” form of Armenian dance. This is not to say that there were no fast-paced, impressive dances in the past; Eastern Armenian dance does tend to be such (some examples are Agar Magar, Trngi, and so forth), but a balleticized version of all these dances was put forward as the only pure Armenian dance.
How can dance be used as a leftist tool?
Dance is an important overlooked tool in the struggle for international socialism and the elimination of artificial borders. While the steps and tools below are specific to the Armenian and Middle Eastern contexts, they can and should be re-tooled to other specific cultural contexts.
The bourgeois national domination of the dance revival movement has generally resulted in an insecure tendency to claim and gatekeep all dances that Armenians dance as uniquely Armenian. All sorts of folk etymologies and historical revisionism are spread to defend these claims; this, of course, is not unique among Armenians and is a widespread Middle Eastern phenomenon (especially among Turks, Greeks, Azerbaijanis, Kurds, Assyrians, and so forth).
However, reality informs us differently:
- The Ghosh Bilazig (or Hoş Bilezik) dance, meaning beautiful bracelet, from the Erzroum-Yerznga region, is shared and is still danced today by both Turks and Armenians.
- Uzundara (or Uzundərə), with uncertain origins (some say it developed in Erzroum and was brought to the Caucasus in the 1800s, while others say it developed in Artsakh), is a dance shared by Armenians and Azerbaijanis.
- Khumkhuma (or Ximximê) is a shared Kurdish-Armenian dance, danced traditionally in the Armenian Diaspora and, in recent years, also in Armenia.
- Lorge, the Van-Vasbourgan version in particular, is another shared Kurdish and Armenian dance.
- Sheykhani (and its variant, Bagiye) is a dance shared by Assyrians, Kurds, and Armenians (known to us also under the names “Shirkhani” and “Ishkhanats Par”)
- Certain dance styles (large categories of similar dances), such as tamzaras and kocharis, are shared across peoples in the region, including Armenians, Kurds, Turks, Assyrians, Azerbaijanis, Pontic Greeks, Êzidîs, and so forth.
And indeed, the list does not end here but could be continued with at least fifteen more dances.
These similarities, which today serve as a root of national insecurity and manifest as a need to control and nationalize dance, should instead be used to show the similarities between the working peoples of all nations.
It is not that Kurds “stole” Lorge from Armenians, or Armenians “stole” Ghosh Bilezik from Turks, but that entire region has a shared history and, for better or for worse, a shared fate; the nature of that fate depends on our capacity for internationalist solidarity.
Tools and Methods:
a) Organization of united dance workshops
This, to some degree, has already begun to be developed in the Armenian Diaspora, specifically between Armenians and Kurds. Such workshops, if conducted by the right people with a true internationalist mentality, would build the revolutionary solidarity of peoples. One core part of that mentality is the rejection of the destructive bourgeois nationalist “ownership view” of dance; all dances with disputed or mixed origins should be presented as such.
Armenians and Kurds, enjoying a relationship of decades-old solidarity, can already begin this process together. For other groups, it may take longer; leftist Turkish organizations — such as the Confederation of Workers from Turkey in Europe or Young Struggle — may be brought into the fold since they already reject bourgeois nationalism.
To even hope to eliminate artificial borders made of steel and wood, it is necessary to first eliminate those borders from our minds and bodies through solidarity and internationalism. This applies not simply to Mesopotamia and the Caucasus but to all regions across the world.
b) The creation of new joint dances
Socialism, being a scientific ideology, should encourage a historiographical-anthropological approach to dance that requires the preservation of the old before creating the new.
However, once the ancient dances have been preserved and used to show the connections between the various peoples of Mesopotamia and the Caucasus, new joint dances should be created to be danced alongside the old. These new dances now could no longer be the source of any arguments concerning origin whatsoever. They would also be devoid of regional or national variation, at least initially.
But earlier, did I not criticize the Soviet Union for creating and promoting new dances? What is the difference here? The key lies in the purpose of the creation of a new dance. The Soviet Union created new dances to impress and astound on the stage; this is a perversion of the nature of dance, which turns it from a working-class and peasant activity into a petty-bourgeois activity. New dances must be created with special attention towards ensuring that they are suited for dancing by the wider public, not simply for showing off to the wider public.
c) Comprehensive socialist literature on dance
Today, the literature on dance in the Mesopotamian and Caucasus regions is written separately by authors of different origins in a way that encourages national antagonism because it presents different histories and different origins for mutual dances. Instead, socialist anthropologists and dance experts must come together to pen new literature that takes into account the mutual belonging of the dances and presents all possible histories without a trace of ethno-national bias.
Only with such a scientific approach full of internationalist collaboration can true work be written without petty squabbles and accusations of theft, which are all too common throughout Mesopotamia and the Caucasus. In the Armenian context specifically, similarity between dances (especially between Armenian and Kurdish or Turkish dances) is taken either as a sign that the other peoples have stolen their dance from us or that we have been Turkified by adopting the dance and must return to our “ancient” (which usually just happens to be more European) roots. And yet, I would be far more surprised if peoples who have lived in the same region for over a thousand years (in the case of the Kurds, thousands upon thousands of years) did not develop similar dances — in fact, such a thing would be next to impossible.
For far too long, bourgeois national antagonism has been at the core of culture in the Middle East. It is time to instead utilize culture for the joint advancement of humanity and the development of the international friendship of peoples.
In our hands, the steps of our proud dances may become the first steps towards international socialism. One world, one struggle, one future!
