FUSE#1

Element# 1.2
Post-Colonial
Tactics
Ruminations on
asiaNness & Dance
by Nirmala Seshadri
2. In claiming an Asian identity, what is at stake and which
agendas are we validating?
I looked at the Esplanade’s 2017 Dance Festival
programme line-up where “Asian” forms were mostly
non-ticketed and relegated to performances at the
Concourse, Outdoor spaces and as workshops and talks.
The website also highlights the separate arts festivals that
are organised by the Esplanade to feature the various
communities - Kala Utsavam, Pesta Raya and Hua Yi
platforms. But it needs to be kept in mind that in the
performance space, we speak of ‘Asian-ness’ as the
‘Other’ that exists in silos, on the margins, as cultural
heritage and cultural representation. How the different
ethnicities are situated on the margins would be an
interesting area of study.
Asian-ness is the tag that is needed to justify the presence
of the dancing body that is not trained in the western dance
idiom.
On the other side of it, there tends to be a sidelining by the
specific ‘ethnic’ community, of the dancer who is seen to
veer away from what is considered acceptable
2
representation . Not only have I experienced this personally,
but I also understand from conversations with younger
dancers who are keen to push the boundaries of thought
and form, that it can be challenging to negotiate the
structures. The marginalisation on both sides of the fence
(ie within the ethnic silo and in the mainstream) carries
implications in terms of recognition, opportunities and
ultimately - the ability to exist. In other words - Erasure.
When talking of claiming the Asian identity, let me first hold up
the lenses of history and nostalgia.
The late pioneering dance teacher Mr. K.P. Bhaskar stated in an
interview with me, that in the 1960s there were multiracial
performances organised by political parties featuring Chinese,
Malay, Indian and Western dance (in Seshadri, 2013). Ballet
choreographer and dance scholar Francis Yeoh highlights that
when the National Dance Company (NDC) was formed later,
ballet existed alongside the other forms (2006). The promotion of
a ballet dancer/choreographer to the important position of
artistic director, as opposed to someone from the other dance
forms, points to the privileging of ballet as occupying a distinct
class from the other forms. By the time the Singapore Multi
Ethnic Dance Ensemble was formed a few years later under the
umbrella of the People’s Association, ballet was separated from
the “traditional” dance forms. The ballet wing of the NDC went
on to become the Singapore Dance Theatre (SDT) in 1988 which
went on to receive strong support from the government and has
been featured prominently right from its inception. In discussing
the attention received by SDT, sociologist Gan Hui Cheng
highlights the marginalised position of ethnic dance forms, which
is in stark contrast to their role, visibility and status in the 1950s
(2002).
These past events reveal that by claiming the Asian identity in
Singapore especially in the 1980s, we have subscribed to the
western evolutionary model of classification of dance forms that
has been discussed by anthropologist Joann Keali’ihonomoku
who underscores the point that ‘ethnic’ (unchanging traditions)
is relegated to the margins and ballet viewed as superior (1970).
2
My recent essay on this issue of marginalisation is: Seshadri, Nirmala (2017) ‘The Problematic Danseuse: Reclaiming
Space to Dance the Lived Feminine’, in Diotima’s: A Journal of New Readings, Kozhikode, Kerala: Providence
Women’s College, 54-79
57 58