ROGER COPELAND
111
for some primitive, preverbal, undissociated form of communica–
tion, they seem reconciled to the fact that human beings are, by defi–
nition, language-bearing animals (and this fact inevitably alters the
way we both create and perceive dances).
Yvonne Rainer, probably the most articulate of the postmodern
choreographers , clearly parts ways with her modernist predecessor
Loie Fuller when she admits, "I have a longstanding infatuation
with language, a not easily assailed conviction that it, above all else,
offers a key to clarity." No advocate of primitive wholeness, Rainer
has also confessed, "I love . .. the duality of the body: the body as a
moving, thinking, decision and action-making entity and the body
as an inert entity, object-like." The postmodern choreographers
seem to recognize the wisdom of Brecht's tragic conclusion that" the
union of organs is the only union and it can never bridge the gap of
speech ."
In
Elements of Semiology,
Roland Barthes argued that "it appears
increasingly more difficult to conceive a system of images and
objects whose signifieds can exist independently of language ."
Kenneth King, the most loquacious of the postmodern choreogra–
phers, echoes Barthes's basic premise when he says, "I know dance
is nondiscursive, but we process our perceptions linguistically. Lan–
guage is bound up with how we see in ways we ' re not even aware of.
And often, when I do a movement , words come to mind."
I don't know that the choreographers in question would go as
far as Barthes and argue that all systems of meaning are ultimately
subdivisions of language (thereby reversing de Saussure's belief that
language is but one of many possible semiotic systems) . But I do
think most would agree that the sort of
Verfremdungs-Effekt
so neces–
sary to their art would not be possible in a preliterate society.
The chief difference, then, between postmodern dance and the
forms that preceded it is not merely the fact that language is often
employed in performance (although to be sure, in the late sixties and
early seventies the work of choreographers like Rainer, Trisha
Brown , and Kenneth King sometimes contained more talking than
moving). More important is the "linguistic" state of mind in which
these dances are created and perceived. William James once com–
plained that "verbality has stepped into the place of vision." The
postmodernists seem to accept this fact, uncomplainingly.
This reconciliation with the " fact" oflanguage also brings with
it an altered attitude toward time and history. In Trisha Brown's
