Can George dance? Biosemiotics and human exceptionalism with a lyrebird in the viewfinder

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

Abstract

Are the movements of the Australian Albert’s lyrebird “George” best identified as dance, “dance,” proto-dance, or functional gestures? I draw on the tools of biosemiotics to shed light on human signifying practice vis-à-vis dance – specifically, how humans make sense of avian dance, how they compare and contrast it with human dance, and what a definition tells us about its makers. In both the natural sciences and humanities, competing discourses abound to the contention that animal movements could fruitfully be considered as dance. A trend emerges in some definitions of dance (which may also invoke human exceptionalism) of characterizations that ignore extant reports of animal abilities – of a classificatory rather than an evaluative posture. I argue that in overcoming the limitations of human exceptionalism in analytic frameworks by explicitly incorporating animal efforts into theory development, validation, and revision (theories often dominated by human and elite Western concerns), we will arrive at a less-distorted version of the multimodal behavior we call dancing.

LanguageEnglish
Pages60-76
Number of pages17
JournalSocial Semiotics
Volume28
Issue number1
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2018

Fingerprint

dance
Animals
Natural sciences
animal
Biosemiotics
Exceptionalism
Dance
development theory
natural sciences
elite
discourse
ability
trend

Keywords

  • animal aesthetics
  • Biosemiotics
  • defining dance
  • human exceptionalism
  • lyrebird
  • zoösemiotics

Cite this

@article{9afd0d43037741e29fbc10dffd69f2ef,
title = "Can George dance? Biosemiotics and human exceptionalism with a lyrebird in the viewfinder",
abstract = "Are the movements of the Australian Albert’s lyrebird “George” best identified as dance, “dance,” proto-dance, or functional gestures? I draw on the tools of biosemiotics to shed light on human signifying practice vis-{\`a}-vis dance – specifically, how humans make sense of avian dance, how they compare and contrast it with human dance, and what a definition tells us about its makers. In both the natural sciences and humanities, competing discourses abound to the contention that animal movements could fruitfully be considered as dance. A trend emerges in some definitions of dance (which may also invoke human exceptionalism) of characterizations that ignore extant reports of animal abilities – of a classificatory rather than an evaluative posture. I argue that in overcoming the limitations of human exceptionalism in analytic frameworks by explicitly incorporating animal efforts into theory development, validation, and revision (theories often dominated by human and elite Western concerns), we will arrive at a less-distorted version of the multimodal behavior we call dancing.",
keywords = "animal aesthetics, Biosemiotics, defining dance, human exceptionalism, lyrebird, zo{\"o}semiotics",
author = "Hollis Taylor",
year = "2018",
doi = "10.1080/10350330.2016.1223115",
language = "English",
volume = "28",
pages = "60--76",
journal = "Social Semiotics",
issn = "1035-0330",
publisher = "Taylor & Francis",
number = "1",

}

Can George dance? Biosemiotics and human exceptionalism with a lyrebird in the viewfinder. / Taylor, Hollis.

In: Social Semiotics, Vol. 28, No. 1, 2018, p. 60-76.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Can George dance? Biosemiotics and human exceptionalism with a lyrebird in the viewfinder

AU - Taylor, Hollis

PY - 2018

Y1 - 2018

N2 - Are the movements of the Australian Albert’s lyrebird “George” best identified as dance, “dance,” proto-dance, or functional gestures? I draw on the tools of biosemiotics to shed light on human signifying practice vis-à-vis dance – specifically, how humans make sense of avian dance, how they compare and contrast it with human dance, and what a definition tells us about its makers. In both the natural sciences and humanities, competing discourses abound to the contention that animal movements could fruitfully be considered as dance. A trend emerges in some definitions of dance (which may also invoke human exceptionalism) of characterizations that ignore extant reports of animal abilities – of a classificatory rather than an evaluative posture. I argue that in overcoming the limitations of human exceptionalism in analytic frameworks by explicitly incorporating animal efforts into theory development, validation, and revision (theories often dominated by human and elite Western concerns), we will arrive at a less-distorted version of the multimodal behavior we call dancing.

AB - Are the movements of the Australian Albert’s lyrebird “George” best identified as dance, “dance,” proto-dance, or functional gestures? I draw on the tools of biosemiotics to shed light on human signifying practice vis-à-vis dance – specifically, how humans make sense of avian dance, how they compare and contrast it with human dance, and what a definition tells us about its makers. In both the natural sciences and humanities, competing discourses abound to the contention that animal movements could fruitfully be considered as dance. A trend emerges in some definitions of dance (which may also invoke human exceptionalism) of characterizations that ignore extant reports of animal abilities – of a classificatory rather than an evaluative posture. I argue that in overcoming the limitations of human exceptionalism in analytic frameworks by explicitly incorporating animal efforts into theory development, validation, and revision (theories often dominated by human and elite Western concerns), we will arrive at a less-distorted version of the multimodal behavior we call dancing.

KW - animal aesthetics

KW - Biosemiotics

KW - defining dance

KW - human exceptionalism

KW - lyrebird

KW - zoösemiotics

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84982104029&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1080/10350330.2016.1223115

DO - 10.1080/10350330.2016.1223115

M3 - Article

VL - 28

SP - 60

EP - 76

JO - Social Semiotics

T2 - Social Semiotics

JF - Social Semiotics

SN - 1035-0330

IS - 1

ER -