The General Theory of Not Dancing

"Those who hate gardening need a theory. Not-gardening without a theory is a shallow, unworthy way of life. A theory must be convincing and scientific. Yet to different people, different theories are convincing and scientific. Therefore, we need a number of theories.

"The alternative to not-gardening without a theory is to garden. However it is much easier to have a theory than actually to garden."
-- Leszek Kolakowski

Lisa writes: I like to garden. I'm not much good at it, but it gives me considerable pleasure. I need no theory to explain why it is worth laboring in March in order to eat a tomato in August.

But dancing! Dancing is another matter altogether. I have frequently longed for a means of putting to rest forever others' idle hopes that I might someday join them on the dance floor. For years, I used to explain my not-dancing with the offhand remark, "I don't dance; I'm a musician." But it's been a while since I've played my trumpet with any frequency, so that line is starting to sound a bit forced. And after reading Mr. Kolakowski's theories of not gardening, I have come to realize that all along I have been employing excuses, when what is called for is a good theory.

I offer the following as a service to my fellow not-dancers -- others who have found themselves the subjects of unwanted attention at philosophy mixers and sock hops, because they didn't want to get out on the dance floor and yump and yort like some kind of kook. Use these in good health.

Cartesianism
To dance is to immerse oneself in the corporeal aspect of one's personhood. But as we know, from the Meditations, the body is not any part of the human essence, but is a mere accidental appendage of it. Therefore, to dance is to change oneself into an inessential part of oneself -- it is to run the risk of disappearing. Dancing destroys the soul; engage in it at your own peril.

Deweyan Pragmatism
The distinction between dancing and not-dancing is simply an unfamiliar form of those tired old dichotomies that have haunted us since the Greeks: theory versus practice, activity versus passivity. As we know, that dichotomy is false; theory is not different in kind from practice, it is just a different kind of practice, a more contemplative and meditative kind. Similarly, not-dancing is simply a particular kind of dancing, one characterized by stillness and constancy of location. Not dancing is dancing.

Wittgensteinianism
"Dancing." like "game" is a term that we can only define by noting the family resemblance among different kinds of dancing; some involve music, some involve complex steps, some involve precision of movement, some require a partner; some incorporate costumes and props; some are done by professionals while others are done by amateurs. There is no set of essential properties that all dancing must share, and by virtue of which all such activities constitute dancing. Furthermore, dancing is an activity grounded in a particular form of life; if you do not share my form of life, you will not recognize my dancing. If a lion could dance, we might well mistake it for hunting. Are you certain that the person sitting next to you is not dancing?

Kantianism
To dance, one must have a partner. And in dancing, one must use that partner to further one's own ends -- namely, propulsion across the dance floor. But to use a partner in this fashion is to treat him as a means only, and not always also as an end in itself. When, through our actions, we regard the other as a means only, our actions cease to be moral, and we expel ourselves from the Kingdom of Ends. Dancing violates the second formulation of the Categorical Imperative.