Alexis wrote: > We should stop pigeon-holing everything we come across. Categories are > useful to discuss things, but let's stop pretending they're Platonic > universals.
Agreed. And some categories are useful in one situation (e.g., marketing) and not another (e.g., learning). The names we have for tango styles are arbitrary, they are not mutually exclusive, they reflect social associations more than they do anything structural in the dance, and they are, above all, just labels. They are labels that can bring attention to certain features and differences, and can help us see similarities. But these labels can also blind people to what is there in the dance. "Oh - they are dancing tango nuevo - I like/don't like that..." "Oh - they are dancing milonguero style - that's for me...." I sometimes think people don't even see the dancing--they just see a style - lately one of two possible varieties. The idea of styles can blind people to what's in the dance. The idea of dancing a style can prevent learners from understanding what tango is. Affiliating to one style or another makes people dwell on which style is better than the other, and why, rather than discovering what each style can teach the other. Stylistic categories can be beneficial or harmful. In the last two or three years I think the discourse surrounding styles has become almost totally negative and counterproductive. The map is not the territory. Joe Grohens _______________________________________________ Tango-L mailing list Tango-L@mit.edu http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/tango-l
