These days I’m working on revising, correcting and translating my book (in case you didn’t know, yes, I’ve written a book and I’m hoping to publish the Spanish edition soon, the English edition is a little behind). In the middle of that I found a video that’s not about tango, but since I was “on topic” I thought it was a great excuse to talk about tango and its complexities. Stick around to watch the video and to find out how it can help you in your tango dancing.
I don’t know about you, but I’m a long time fan of the TED initiative. TED is a conference that’s held annually in the USA, and that focuses on Technology, Education and Design with short talks of up to 18 minutes each with “ideas worth spreading” (this is their motto). You probably know all this, just checking.
Here’s a video recorded at TEDxHouston, let’s watch it first and then discuss how it relates to tango.
If you like this talk, I highly recommend you give www.ted.com a look. Just be aware you can spend days and days just watching amazing conferences…
Unraveling some tango mysteries
With some luck just by seeing the video you found some connections with tango dancing. Let’s slowly review what Brené Brown, the speaker, discusses.
After some minutes of introduction to the talk, Brown says that she decided she’d study the connection between people. This is interesting, and at this point you probably began to pay more attention: everyone related to tango dancing has heard time and againg that connection is the most important thing for good tango dancing. Which is curious, because nobody seems to take the time and effort to work on this systematically and to try to understand it better (I do, in case you were wondering 🙂 ). All this talk about connection while no work is being done seems like an unexplainable paradox, but Brown also gives us some clues about this.
I think the first thing that should be made clear is that this is not a paradox, but just lack of pedagogy. A lack of pedagogy from every teacher that cannot explain this, sure, but most importantly a pedagogical and methodological failure of the way we describe tango dancing in itself. This is something to explore more in detail (it’s in the book…) but let’s just say that the scientistic approach of describing the movements from the outside is really harmful because connection is not something too visible or measurable, and as Brown quotes in the video “if you can’t measure it, it doesn’t exist“.
The second reason why this is not really a paradox but something really easy to explain is that the video teaches us that the factor associated with lack of connection is shame, which is nothing more than a type of fear: fear that who I really am is not worthy of connection from others. And discussing fear, ridicule and shame isn’t easy, so we just never do and the problem is left alone. I usually don’t discuss fear and shame either, but only because I skip ahead to the next step.
Brené Brown says that according to her research the common trait, the requisite for connection, to not be afraid and feel worth of it, is to accept our own vulnerability. What all the subjects display is the courage to be imperfect, the compassion to be gentle with themselves and others, and the connection appears as a result of this. This connection is the result of authenticity, of accepting ourselves as we are and of letting go of what we think we should be.
And how do we do this with our tango dancing? I’ve been a strong proponent for many years of the idea that the basis of tango is not its movements but its sensations. This is not some pseudopoetic twist, in my case it’s a concrete and organized work methodology. And if we begin to work from our sensations, we necessarily start to value who we are and what we want, over who we should be or what we should want to do (in our tango context, this should be is represented by tango steps).
Approaching our sensations also necessarily confronts us with our own limitations and imperfections, but at the same time it shows us how to work through them. This means that not only sensations are able to show us where we truly are on the path, they also orient us and they shine the way forward.
Finally, working with our physical, emotional and spiritual sensations in a more permanent and systematic way puts us in a better position to be able to observe, listen, understand, accept and welcome our partner… physically, emotionally and spiritually. As you can see, these ideas put us on the path of connection and total improvisation with our couple.
The illusion of control
At this point Brené Brown mentions that she felt these findings as a deep betrayal: her life was dedicated to controlling and predicting, and her own research was telling her that this is a really bad idea. For tango, the idea of dismantling the need for control also destroys one of the most pervasive aspects of tango dancing as it is taught everywhere on the planet. Can you guess what it is? Here’s a hint, it’s in the title of this post…
Speaking of roles in tango is a big enough task, and I dedicate a whole chapter to them (I’m so looking forward to publishing my book, does it show?). Let me summarize some of that for you. To talk about roles is not to talk about gender. It has nothing to do with sexuality or with the advances (or lack of advances) of the rights of women, homosexuals, or any other group of our society. And the big problem of roles is not that there’s one that’s supposedly more passive than the other, but actually quite the opposite: the problem comes with thinking that there’s someone that leads.
When I mention that there are no roles in tango the first thing I get asked is always “but what if I want to go somewhere and my partner wants to go somewhere else?“. There’s an aftertaste with hints of aggression in thinking of the couple as a conflict and in looking for a winner inside of it. When one of the two members of the couple is set on doing something in particular the problem is already present.
The real process is much more flexible: my sensations include the person I dance with. If my partner is not ready I won’t suggest to move, if it’s easy for her to move to the right I won’t ask her to go to the left. Am I not following her, then? If I dance differently with every partner, how can I insist in thinking that I’m really in charge of the thing? And if nothing changes even if I switch couples, am I really connecting?
Beginning to change this toxic way of thinking and feeling in roles lets us embrace even more the path to connection, courage, the imperfections in us and others, compassion and shared improvisation. To create is nothing more than allowing ourselves to be transported by who we are and what happens to us, and in tango this can never be done alone.
Lastly, as Brown says in the final minutes of her talk, it’s not possible to block only negative feelings, we numb them all at the same time. This is why if you dare to think and live your tango this way the rewards will be huge moments of enjoyment, of interrelating, of intimacy, and of irreplaceable emotional, spiritual (and physical!) finesse. That’s why sensations should always be the fundamental core in the study of technique.
What do you think? Are you interested in exploring this way of thinking about tango? Are there any thinkers, philosophers, researchers, that made you rethink something related to your tango? Or that said something that made it easier to express your own long-held thoughts, like this conference did for me? Leave a comment and tell me all about it, I’d love to know! 😀 And don’t forget to subscribe to my newsletter with the miniform on the sidebar so I can update you on future activities and posts…
Esta entrada también está disponible en: Spanish
Very interesting and I’m looking forward to the book.
Hey, thanks a lot, and welcome! No idea on the book yet, but I’ll be posting a video with a fuller overview of some ideas soon, I’m actually finishing the subtitling process. Hope that helps…
Thank you so much, your way of thinking about these things looks very interesting for me and very familiar since I experience very close feelings while learning to lead (so to speak, lead :)).
I do agree with you that roles are not about leading and following and the only one leader is music, but on the other hand I do not experience “leading” as a masculine and “following” as a feminine role, so I can’t accept gender definition as well. My own experience of “leading” is very, very feminine. Actually, it awakes some deeper levels of femininity that I’ve never used in my life.
In the end I have no definitions for these roles – and probably this is not so bad… For me it is about two people dancing. One proposes, other reacts, then first reacts on reaction, then… That’s it.
Hi Xenia, thanks for your comments.
You are, of course, absolutely correct, so maybe I should clarify a bit further. I’m not stating (at least I don’t want to) that I personally think leading is masculine and leading is feminine. That’s why I say that talking about roles is not talking about gender, and it has nothing to do with sexuality. I just know many people that refer to leading and following as the masculine and feminine role, or the man´s part and the women´s part, or similar gender-based denominations. The thing is being masculine or feminine is not a role for most of us, but some aspect of our identity, and I think some people tend to confuse those ideas. So this way of referring to roles is profoundly incorrect, but also widespread in Buenos Aires. In short, yes, what you said. 🙂
There’s something about your last line. Sometime people have said to me that because someone takes the first initiative, even if then there’s this cycle that you meniton of chained reactions to previous actions, this means there’s a difference in roles (because someone starts). Maybe I sound stubborn because I’m trying to make a point, but really, where does that first idea comes from? Your first movement depends on your context, and that includes your partner, so he or she is already influencing your movements. You’re not really proposing anything, that first proposition is also a reaction. Or, let me rephrase, it could be also a reaction. Some people really decide on their own, but I don’t think it’s necessary or a good idea.
Thanks again!
Oh, yes, of course! I meant proposing something to somebody specific not the same thing to everybody. It certainly is a reaction.
I think, we agree in a sense that everything there is a reaction and following. Now tell me, please, how does it come into practical teaching 🙂
Sure! It´s a bit long, hang in there.
First thing is, this is not an add-on to the work, if you’re basing your practice in moving from sensations it follows that you begin to be in a place where the fading of roles can happen more or less on its own. Roles disappearing is just a consequence of a certain approach, so it’s everywhere, all the time.
That being said, here’s some things.
One part of the big concept is this, everything we work on, we both work on. Same movements, same practice, same tools, we both train the same.
Now, the first work ever on the first lesson is taking turns in doing some very simple things (i.e I do a move, then you do one, then me again, etc.). This means that they are indeed leading at this point, alternating roles. But oftentimes what happens is someone looses track, and then they are both working correctly, but neither of them is sure on who’s leading. I sometimes follow by showing a bit of how I can blur that line intentionally, so that people experience the idea more vividly.
Other than working the same exercises and taking turns, we also work on expanding your partner’s idea, so that his/her straight movement might transform into a turn, for example, and then your partner also uses that turning to trigger something else.
The basic thing, again, is that you work by sensing and then allowing and committing to what you feel must happen. The mindset is not “OK, my turn to do something”. It’s about accepting and allowing first, and maybe enhancing a little, afterwards. Following comes from accepting, but so does leading, so finally it’s just accepting (and allowing and maybe expanding/enhancing). Some exercises like the last one are meant to help you understand how to relate to your partner better, and how to embrace what they do, as the “default” state to be in.
One caveat is that doing any of this (and to what extent you do it) is a personal thing. It never means the couple is “symmetrical”, because some people enjoy “talking” more than others, and that’s OK. It is about having a conversation, though, and catching yourself if you go on a rant. You’re not dancing alone, so you probably shouldn’t be deciding/”talking” (leading) alone either.
Final point, I understand very clearly the limits of the written (or oral!) word. Some ideas are hard to explain, because the realities being described are not so clear to our rational ways of thinking, and words often fall short . But then again, poetry is also a thing that exists. When it comes to how to organize the dance, thinking in roles is like reading a manual, thinking without them is like poetry. The first one is easier to wrap your rational mind around, the second one is more profound and moving (easier to wrap you soul/spirit/emotions around!) but can be a little disconcerting logically. This is not a flaw of poetry. This also means that when I say the basis is sensations, I’m being quite literal. The only true way of understanding this is by experiencing it… But hopefully words can shine the way a little, especially if you have felt some of this on your own.
Makes sense?
Of course, I definitely makes sense. I just wonder why so many beginners are so fond of feeling that everything should go exactly as they planned… Do they speak this way as well? Like: she was supposed to answer me about the weather, why she suddenly starts to speak about work?
I mean, why people get there at all? Don’t they have an experience addressing every sentence separately, without planning whole conversation in advance?
It can happen, sure. Usually not too often, but it does happen.
This, like everything else, you need to solve by explaining (like you did! what’s more important staying on topic or having a conversation?) but also by doing. Usually they are not stressed out about their partner having some initiative because they’ve been working like that, but about their partners not moving precisely as they expect. If someone is worried because things might not go their way it’s not just about explaining that that’s OK, you might also want to work on solving for variations so that they don’t feel powerless or lost when odd things happen. This is useful not only when your partner does something weird but when you make a mistake as well. I call these variations “expressions”, in the sense that you’re expressing a big direction with all of them, just in different ways. You can also think of them as synonyms.
Of course this is waaay more advanced, we don’t do this on day one! That’s for day three. XD
Oh, and one last thing, if “so many beginners” do something, my most visceral impulse is never to criticize them, but to examine what we’re telling them instead. I tend to think that if they all do the same thing, it’s probably not their fault, and it’s not just a coincidence… The way we teach tango reinforces those aspects that people ask about all the time, so much so that they can’t even process that’s not how life usually works for them! I’ve seen way too many intelligent people ask stupid questions to ignore this. They get so sucked into a specific logic that they loose all other references… And it starts on day one, when a teacher says “no, not that leg, the other one”, when we know perfectly well that tango allows for that other leg.
Some of this is also discussed more generally on this post that I think you’ve seen: https://tangocreativo.com.ar/en/blog/2014/08/proposal-to-educational-problems-in-tango-video/
Thanks so much for your comments!
I am also a fan of TED videos. Thank you for pointing out. I have already seen it, but I did not think about this comparison.
Thanks a lot, glad you enjoyed it!