Dynamic Inheritance: Representative Works and the Authoring of Tradition in Chinese Dance Emily E. Wilcox Journal of Folklore Research, Volume 55, Number 1, January-April 2018, pp. 77-111 (Article) Published by Indiana University Press For additional information about this article https://muse.jhu.edu/article/688057 Access provided by University of Michigan @ Ann Arbor (24 Apr 2018 02:21 GMT) Emily E. Wilcox Dynamic Inheritance: Representative Works and the Authoring of Tradition in Chinese Dance Abstract: This article examines the creative process through which particular dance techniques and aesthetic styles originally derived from folk forms are transformed and integrated into the conservatory dance tradition in the People’s Republic of China. I propose the term “dynamic inheritance” to describe this officially prescribed sequence of activities, which was first formalized during the period of early socialist culture (1937–1965) and continues to be the dominant creative method followed by state-sponsored Chinese dance artists today. The most com- mon phrase used to describe this process is “to inherit and develop” (jicheng yu fazhan). It suggests that individual artists act as agents or stewards in the handing down of tradition, by following a process whose success is measured not by how strictly existing forms are preserved, but, rather, by how well they are made to speak to and be appreciated by contemporary audiences. In this process, the “representative work” (daibiaozuo) becomes the crucial medium through which artists carry out this process of dynamic inheritance and authorship of tradition. Thinking through the relationship between artists and traditions in contemporary China requires considering the ways in which socialist modernity—a force that shaped China for much of the twentieth century—fostered new notions of heritage and culture. In his oft- cited “Talks at the Yan’an Forum on Literature and Art” in 1942, Mao Zedong famously called on China’s socialist writers and artists to make art serve politics. He also proposed a new approach to creating art; by studying the everyday lives of the common people, Mao proclaimed, Journal of Folklore Research, Vol. 55, No. 1, 2018 • doi:10.2979/jfolkrese.55.1.04 Copyright © 2018, Department of Folklore and Ethnomusicology, Indiana University 77 78 Journal of Folklore Research Vol. 55, No. 1 artists would create new artistic works that not only promoted new political ideals but also drew heavily on folk culture. The expectation that revolutionary artists would study, adapt, and promote folk forms was a central tenet of Chinese socialist culture. In his 1942 talks, Mao referred to folk forms as “the rich, lively language of the masses,” and he believed that folk forms could most effectively communicate new political ideas to the common people (Mao 1996, 461). This idea of combining new political ideals with folk forms was expressed in the phrase “socialist in content and national in form.” First articulated by Joseph Stalin in 1925, and adopted by Mao in the late 1930s, this was the key structure of Chinese revolutionary culture during the period between 1937 and 1965.1 Although the imperative to employ national forms was challenged during the last decade of Maoist rule from 1966 to 1976—reflected through the dominance of ballet over national dance forms during this period—the empha- sis on national forms reemerged in the post-1976 era and contin- ues today. The process of constructing Chinese dance as a “national form” (minzu xingshi), which was first popularized during the social- ist period, still shapes the creation of Chinese dance in the People’s Republic of China (PRC) today. The term “Chinese dance” refers to a form of modern concert dance developed in the twentieth century that claims to have a basis in performance forms indigenous to the geographical regions included in modern-day China. Examples of indigenous performance forms that have inspired Chinese dance include religious rituals, social dance, local opera theater, martial arts, and historical court dance. Most styles of Chinese dance have undergone a three-part evolution: First, professional dancers conducted field research with folk artists and adapted elements of the folk forms they learned and observed into modern stage productions. Second, movements from successful stage productions were integrated into conservatory training curric- ula, where they became the basic techniques used to train new gen- erations of professional dancers. Third, the popularization of these stage productions and training curricula led to their imitation by amateurs, spawning often simpler versions practiced in parks, primary schools, and community centers. This article is concerned primarily with the first part of this evolution: the process through which folk forms, which are embedded in community life and vary incredibly across space and time, are transformed into professionalized Chinese dance styles that are standardized across the country and performed Wilcox Dynamic Inheritance 79 in modern stage contexts. It thus seeks to understand how the rela- tively unified form of Chinese dance evolves, in an ongoing process, out of a seemingly endless variety of diverse folk forms. To discuss Chinese dance, it is necessary to have a grasp of some basic vocabulary. One of the most confusing terms in this context is “folk dance” (minjian wu), because it can mean both indigenous folk performance—especially social dances performed by rural communities—and the professionalized styles of Chinese concert dance created from folk forms. Among Chinese dancers and dance scholars, there have been many attempts to clarify this language, for example by using the term “nationalized folk dance” (minzu minji- anwu) or “academy folk dance” (xueyuanpai minjianwu) to refer to professionalized Chinese dance styles and “original-environment folk dance” (yuanshengtai wudao) to refer to indigenous folk performance. The problem is complex because the term “folk” has multiple differ- ent meanings in the context of Chinese dance: it can mean popular as opposed to elite, amateur as opposed to professional, or unofficial as opposed to official. Depending on which meaning is being used, the term “folk dance” may have a different connotation in each different context (Xu R. 2010; Jin 2012). When the modern concept of “Chinese dance” (Zhongguo wudao) first emerged, it was defined mainly in opposition to Western dance styles, specifically ballet and Euro-American modern dance. Since the early 1950s, Chinese dance has included three main categories: 1) “Han folk dance” (Hanzu minjian wu) refers to regional dances of the majority Han ethnicity, such as Northeast yangge (Dongbei yangge), Anhui flower drum lamp Anhui( huagudeng), and Yunnan flower lamp (Yunnan huadeng); 2) “Minority dance” (shaoshu minzu wudao), first conceived of in the late 1940s as “frontier dance” (bianjiangwu), refers to regional dances of non-Han ethnic communities, such as Uyghur dance (Weiwu’erzuwu), Mongol dance (Mengguwu), and Tibetan dance (Zangzuwu); and 3) “Chinese classical dance” (Zhongguo gudianwu) originally referred to dances derived from Chinese indig- enous theater (xiqu) forms, especially Peking opera (Jingju) and Kun opera (Kunqu). Today, Chinese classical dance also includes newer schools of technique developed from research on historical court performance and religious artifacts. Two of the most prominent of these are the Han-Tang and Dunhuang schools. Other types of professional concert dance have also developed in China during the twentieth century that are not typically included in 80 Journal of Folklore Research Vol. 55, No. 1 the category of Chinese dance. These include “new dance” (xinxing wudao), “Oriental dance” (dongfangwu), “Chinese ballet” (Zhongguo balei), “modern dance” (xiandaiwu), “dancesport” (guobiaowu), and “hip hop/street dance” (jiewu). The main reason these dance forms are not included in the category of Chinese dance is that they are believed to derive their primary movement vocabularies from nonnative perfor- mance practices. The core feature that has historically defined Chinese dance in contrast to these other dance styles is its presumed basis in movement vocabularies and techniques derived from performance practices native to the geographic regions of contemporary China. Chinese dance presents a conceptual challenge to many com- mon ways that scholars and laypeople in Western Europe and North America think about dance. This is because Chinese dance confounds the common Euro-American idea that dance forms that encourage the continuation of indigenous practices are “traditional,” while dances that encourage individual innovation are “modern.” This modern/ traditional dichotomy is virtually useless in the Chinese dance con- text because Chinese dance pursues both of these things simultane- ously. In other words, Chinese dance is a recent invention that aims to express new experiences and ideas while also placing great value on studying and learning from dance practices of the past. The first widely recognized examples of Chinese dance choreography date to the late 1930s and early 1940s, making Chinese dance as an artistic phenomenon slightly younger than Euro-American modern dance. Furthermore, Chinese dance practitioners have always placed a high value on the importance of individual interpretation as an essential component of cultural continuity. For these reasons, a new vocab- ulary is necessary for moving beyond the traditional/modern dyad when