Agency

I have proposed the hypothesis that music encourages the experience of emotion without agency.

That is, feeling what it is like to have a problem, or not to have a problem, without thinking about how to do anything about it.

Dance

Dance is very strongly associated with music:

Dance is so strongly associated with music, that we can almost argue that dance is itself an aspect of music, but it’s a visual aspect of music rather than an auditory/acoustic aspect.

That is, “music” is some general thing that extends beyond our normal concept of a thing made out of sounds.

The Agency or Non-Agency of Dance

If music is, as I have hypothesized, non-agentic, and dance is strongly associated with music, then we have to conclude that dance is non-agentic.

At first glance, this seems wrong – agency is all about doing things, and dancing is doing something.

So how can dancing be non-agentic?

To resolve this question, I need to give a more precise definition of what I mean by “agentic” in the context of my hypothesis about music and emotion.

In particular, I define agentic as follows:

With regard to dance, we can observe that the action of dancing does not serve the purpose of solving some other problem. One dances for the sake of dancing – one does not dance for the purpose of solving some other problem. (There may be occasional exceptions to this, like dancing with someone you fancy at a social dance even though you don’t like dancing, but such exceptions don’t give us any major insight into the basic nature of dance.)

The Appearance of Non-Agency

If dance is truly non-agentic, then not only does it have to not be the result of thinking about how to do something in order to solve a problem, it also has to not look like it is the result of thinking about how to do something in order to solve a problem.

We can identify different aspects of dance that relate the the appearance of non-agency: