This weekend I will be presenting a session at the National Dance Education Organization’s national conference. The session is entitled, “Five Areas of Knowledge in Tap Dance Land.” In the session I will be exploring five areas of knowledge that are embedded in every tap dance step.
A framework like this, while not complete – the expressed embodiment of tap dance is always more than the theory of a framework – is important for many reasons. It offers opportunity for educators to understand the multiple points of entry into Tap Dance Land – there are at least five. These points of entry can translate into inspiration for students with different learning styles or predispositions. For example, if a student hears melodies more quickly than recognizes movement, it would be better to sing the step to them first, instead of continually repeating the names of the movements expecting the student to lock in. These areas of knowledge can help bring to the surface stumbling blocks in learning as students advance. For example, as rhythms become more complex, a lack of knowledge of how rhythm works generally will prevent the student of progressing, regardless of their proficiency in other areas of knowledge in Tap Dance Land.
These are just a few examples of how defining areas of knowledge directly translate into real life experience. Have knowledge? Your ability to teach clearly, concisely, and with authority is evident. Lack knowledge? Your ability to teach clearly, concisely, and with authority will be sorely undermined regardless of your desire to do so.
Before saying anymore, I must remind myself of the definition of knowledge that I carry. Knowledge is interactive relationship. With a thing, it is working out, through action, how that thing works. It is experimenting to understand how the thing changes under different circumstances. With a person, it is being with them, interacting with them, collaborating with them, such that you begin to know the person. In both cases, we begin to learn of a kind of essence the thing or person. We might call this their character.
In order to progress in any pursuit, we must have this kind of knowledge. However, there are areas of pursuit that have been pursued with a lack of knowledge. The output of such pursuits is nothing short of distortion.
While in the tap dance company TiDii, every member was given a homework assignment by Savion Glover to talk to a tap dancer about a classic step by Jimmy Slyde. I thought the smartest thing to do was call up Jimmy Slyde and talk to him. It was his step after all. Slyde wasn’t the easiest to get a hold of, but I made the call and he answered. When I asked about how he thought about his step, he didn’t have much to say. There was no technical trick, conceptual insight, or other nugget of wisdom. It was the only time in my life that Slyde, an otherwise endless well of wisdom, didn’t come through with something I could chew on. When reporting back, everybody else in the company had some profound insight from there conversation. Here I was, having talked to the cat himself, with nothing.
I recount that story to say that there are different ways for persons to interact, and therefore develop knowledge. There is also the separate skill of translating between those different ways for the sake of teaching and learning. The dancer who has embodied a particular way through a craft will not be required to explain themselves having proven their knowledge in performance. While the history professor, for example, will be required to explain themselves continually because their interaction is more often with the written word than a physical expression of it. However, if there are two history professors with a speciality in the weapons of the American civil war, for instance, the one who had interacted with the weaponry in real life – knowledge – would be in a dramatically different position as a teacher than the one who hadn’t. Jimmy Slyde had all the physical interaction with the craft he needed to create a relationship with an audience and express his artistic statements through tap dance. That was enough for him – and me, too.
If Slyde didn’t have that knowledge a number of things could happen. The lack of knowledge can lead to a stagnation of ability, an inability to hang (as they say), and potentially a strategy of success that is based on something other than knowledge – like leverage perhaps.
This idea of centering interactive relationship spills over into the area of spiritual formation in a number of ways. When it comes to the reality of the world, our aims, and how we intend to get there, what is it that we really know?
Our ability to intentionally gain knowledge is tied to our ability to realistically see ourselves and the chasm between where we are and where we want to go. Once we become aware of this gap, who we trust and what we are willing to experiment with begin to clarify. Without knowledge of the gap from a personal or communal formation standpoint, there will be no need for pursuit. Without specificity around who (or what) we trust and what we are willing to experiment with, we will be flailing in the joys and trials of life.
What is it that you are willing to act on as if it were true? That is what you believe, specifically and with detail. What are you willing to experiment with? That is what you are willing to put on the line for the sake of the thing that you believe. For example, say that someone says they want to practice generosity, but are not willing to risk much in the way of giving. This person will not learn much in their journey for an unwillingness to experiment. Alternatively, say that someone is not very specific about what they believe, but are willing to make big choices and changes in the direction of their general beliefs. This person will not learn much for lack of specificity.
Specificity and willingness are both required to gain knowledge. Without specificity you won’t know what you are trying to work out. Without willingness everything will remain theory for there will be no place to work it out. Without both you may find yourself experiencing the same kinds of things repeatedly, and notably, experiencing them in the same way. Change will be hard to come by. Transformation will feel unreachable.
The real point here is that knowledge is actually attainable. Wherever you are starting from you can start with this: Take a particular claim that you say you believe in. Observe your actions. Are they reflective of that stated belief? If yes, move on to the next one. Once you find a stated belief that your actions don’t reflect, you have identified your starting point. No need to condemn yourself for the hypocrisy. You are on the journey toward knowledge. Hypocrisy, generally missing the mark in some cases, is bound to be found. If we didn’t expect this, we would need to consider ourselves already perfect – definitely not the case for me.
This is the start of the process for gaining knowledge. The alternative is to remain disengaged from the process, remaining in whatever state of knowledge one is in and dealing with the world from that position. While change provides its own set of challenges to our person, it is no more or less challenging than holding a particular position and battling reality from there.
I only can hope that the pursuit of knowledge is one that you might find inspiring. Speaking from personal experience, the alternative is neither easier nor more effective, and ultimately lands you in a state of lack. Lacking the knowledge you might need to work through what is before you.
Lack of Knowledge