Responsible Knowing in Partnering

Authors

Downloads

Keywords:

partnering, dance philosophy, epistemology, care ethics

Abstract

How partners encounter each other plays a role in whether they will be able to sustain their interaction. How partners go about maintaining their interaction reveals features of their epistemological system, particularly with respect to factors like what they know, what they take to be relevant to the interpretation, and what they value. In this way, the value system (what partners want) and the epistemological system (what partners know) intersect. By focusing on the role of reasoning and understanding, I believe we stand to gain a clearer picture of how expectations about interactions inform the dynamics between partners. This, in turn, affords a picture of what partners can actually achieve in and through their connection. I am particularly interested in considering what features of interaction are necessary for maximizing the affordances of the partnership. I say this not as a utilitarian interested in maximizing good simpliciter, but as a social epistemologist thinking about the contingent goods that are present in relation (e.g. care). The epistemic picture assumes that there are things that are knowable in dancing together, while the ethical picture assumes that partners are responsible for the things they ought to know.

Author Biography

Ilya Vidrin

Dr. Ilya Vidrin is Assistant Professor of Creative Practice Research at Northeastern University (USA). Vidrin’s work engages with and investigates ethics of interaction, including the embodiment of care, trust, cultural competence, and social responsibility. Vidrin holds a B.S. in Psychology and Neuroscience from Northeastern University, a Master’s Degree in Human Development and Psychology from Harvard University, and a PhD in Performing Arts from the Centre for Dance Research at Coventry University. Most recently, Vidrin has been visiting artist at the Harvard ArtLab, National Choreographic Center, Jacob’s Pillow Dance Festival, EXC 2020 Temporal Communities (Berlin), and the New Museum (NYC).

References

Baier, Annette. 1986. “Trust and Antitrust.” Ethics 96(2): 231–260. https://doi.org/10.1086/292745 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1086/292745

Bratman, Michael E. 2013. Shared Agency: A Planning Theory of Acting Together. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199897933.001.0001 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199897933.001.0001

Dotson, Kristie. 2014. “Conceptualizing Epistemic Oppression.” Social Epistemology 28(2): 115–138. https://doi.org/10.1080/02691728.2013.782585 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/02691728.2013.782585

Elgin, Catherine Z. 2013. “Epistemic Agency.” Theory and Research in Education 11(2): 135–152. https://doi.org/10.1177/1477878513485173 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1477878513485173

Gilbert, Margaret. 2013. Joint Commitment: How We Make the Social World. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199970148.001.0001 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199970148.001.0001

Hawley, Katherine. 2019. How to Be Trustworthy. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198843900.001.0001 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198843900.001.0001

Horsburgh, Howard John Neate. 1960. “The Ethics of Trust.” The Philosophical Quarterly 10(41): 343–354. https://doi.org/10.2307/2216409 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2216409

Jones, Karen. 1996. “Trust as an Affective Attitude.” Ethics 107(1): 4–25. https://doi.org/10.1086/233694 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1086/233694

Kaminsky, David. 2020. Social Partner Dance. London: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429344756 DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429344756

Laviers, Amy and Vidrin, Ilya. 2021. “What Falling Robots Reveal About the Absurdity of Human Trust”. Psyche Magazine. Accessed March 18, 2024. https://psyche.co/ideas/what-falling-robots-reveal-about-the-absurdity-of-human-trust

Mitra, Royona. 2021. “Unmaking Contact: Choreographic Touch at the Intersections of Race, Caste, and Gender.” Dance Research Journal 53(3): 6–24. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0149767721000358 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0149767721000358

Novack, Cynthia J. 1990. Sharing the Dance: Contact Improvisation and American Culture. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.

Pallant, Cheryl. 2006. Contact Improvisation: An Introduction to a Vitalizing Dance Form. Jefferson, NC: McFarland.

Searle, John R. 1983. Intentionality: An Essay in the Philosophy of Mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139173452 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139173452

Searle, John R. 1990. “Collective Intentions and Actions.” In Intentions in Communication, edited by Philip R. Cohen, Jerry Morgan, and Martha E. Pollack, 401–415. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/3839.003.0021 DOI: https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/3839.003.0021

Serebrennikov, Nikolai. 2000. Pas de Deux: A Textbook on Partnering. Gainesville, FL: University Press of Florida.

Sheets-Johnstone, Maxine. 2017. “Moving in Concert.” Choros International Dance Journal 6: 1–19.

Vidrin, Ilya. 2020. “Embodied Ethics: The Conditions and Norms of Communication in Partnering.” In Thinking Touch in Partnering and Contact Improvisation: Philosophy, Pedagogy, Practice, edited by Malaika Sarco-Thomas, 240–259. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.

Vidrin, Ilya. 2023. “Conceptualizing Care in Partnering.” Performance Research 27(6/7): 26–31. https://doi.org/10.1080/13528165.2022.2197480 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13528165.2022.2197480

Published

25-06-2024