Shall We Dance? by John Derbyshire
I confess I was prejudiced against ballroom dancing. In my mind it came under
the scope of that that very useful British adjective naff: faded, dated and
slightly cheesy, lacking any proper postmodern self-consciousness, any irony.
The overgroomed men; the women loaded down with tulle and costume jewelry; those
rigid cabin-attendant smiles... No, not something any self- respecting boomer
would want to be associated with-- much more Paula Jones than Hillary Clinton.
I think what got, and held, my attention was the unexpected difficulty of it.
My wife and I had done a three week crash course in preparation for the
Petroushka Ball, an annual charity affair given by the New York Russian
community. In the event, our three weeks of application left us with only
minimal skills. Much more often than not we didn't even know which step we
should be doing. The only thing I felt sure of in this area was that a waltz
goes boom-cha-cha; but a dismaying number of other tunes seemed to go
boom-cha-cha, yet we found we couldn't waltz to them.
And there were some real dancers in the Plaza hotel that night. They were
older types, mostly-- children of Russian aristocrats who had fled the
Bolsheviks. Nobody of our own generation seemed to know how to dance; but these
elderly Tsarists were flying round the floor in a way that was undeniably
impressive. You couldn't help thinking-- we could see our coevals thinking--
Hey, I wish I could do that.
We went back to our local studio and signed up for a full course of
instruction. For the private lessons we were back in the hands of Charlie Wood,
who had coached us for the ball. Charlie soon proved a gifted and imaginative
teacher, with a stock of jokes, anecdotes, mnemonics, props and tricks that make
every lesson an entertainment as well as a workout. Under Charlie's unblinking
eye we have tackled ballroom in earnest: the gravity of the waltz, the cheery
insouciance of the foxtrot, the campy flamboyance of the tango, the odd erotic
sparkle of the merengue. Each dance has its own personality, its own particular
appeal to the spirit.
And none of them is merely a matter of steps. Ballroom is a whole-body
activity, and is judged as such. In competitive dancing, when several couples
are on a small floor-- as at our first competition last weekend-- the judges may
not even be able to see your feet. They mark on concepts like "form",
"frame" and "connection". Charlie hammers away relentlessly
at these abstractions, striving to make the intangible real. For
"connection" he has us facing each other across a broomstick, holding
it with our hands, trying to keep it still as we move. At times the skills he is
imparting seem to have a metaphysical quality, as if part of some oriental
religious discipline. "Arms firm, head up, shoulders back, knees slightly
bent. Good: now get ready to move your center of gravity. Five, six, seven
AND..."
Ballroom dancing is, in fact, quite cerebral. Probably the best attribute a
dancer can have-- other than an appetite for endless repetitive practice-- is a
keen intuitive grasp of Newtonian mechanics: how objects move in space under the
action of forces. Our Charlie is something of a specialist here, and is not shy
of using terms like "vector" and "angular momentum" when
describing a movement. After six months of this, I was not very surprised to
find that a chance acquaintance in the competitors' changing room last weekend
was the professor of theoretical physics at Stony Brook University. He danced a
mean samba.
The presence of that professor points up another aspect of ballroom that
confounded my prejudices: its social inclusiveness. George Smith, the franchisee
of our local studio-- it is licensed by the Arthur Murray organization-- had a
distinguished career in the corporate world before returning to ballroom
dancing, his first love (he comes from a family of ballroom champions, and was a
teenage champion himself). The racial composition of ballroom is more puzzling.
Black faces are rare at the studio; yet there are plenty in the congregation of
my church, three blocks away. Even odder is the absence of Hispanics, though
there is a large community nearby, and half the dances we learn have South or
Central American origins.
George told me this last year has been the studio's best ever. The Wednesday
beginner's class is so crowded there is hardly room to do a box step. The most
obvious explanation is the one offered by George himself: interest aroused by
the inclusion of ballroom dancing in the 2000 Olympics (with a boost, I would
like to think, from Masayuki Suo's beautiful movie Shall We Dance). I believe
there is something else going on, though.
To me, as to most who came of age in the sixties and seventies,
"dancing" meant aimless solitary jiggling-- the physiodynamic
equivalent of free verse. ("Free verse?" muttered G.K. Chesterton.
"You may as well call sleeping in a ditch 'free architecture'.") Such
incoherence cannot satisfy the human spirit for long. There is, I think, a
growing hunger for form and formality, for difficulty, for discipline, for
structure. Similarly, I think a generation that grew up watching videos or
hunched over computer screens feels a pull toward the leisured company of their
fellow men. Such company must always be centered on some common activity--
dining, drinking, gambling. Of all the available possibilities, dancing is the
most healthful, the most fun to watch, and the most conducive to cheerful
socializing and the mingling of the sexes. It is no accident that half the key
scenes in the great nineteenth-century social novels, from Jane Austen to
Tolstoy, are set in ballrooms. Whether ballroom dancing is really coming back
for good, I do not know; but if it does not, a great many people will have
missed out on a great deal of harmless fun, and civilization will have lost
another small battle to barbarism.