Realism and Anti-Realism of Bharatanatyam
This paper was written for my class Major Seminars: Topics in Metaphysics taught by Dr. Eleanor Taylor at Johns Hopkins University. I extend my gratitude to Professor Taylor for supporting me to write about such a creative, niche topic.
Bharatanatyam (baa-raa-ta-knot-yum) is one of the oldest forms of classic dance, originating from the Tanjore district in Tamil Nadu, India. The origins of the ancient dance form can be traced back to the theatre treatises such as Natyashastra written by the Brahman sage Bharata Muni. Bharatanatyam is a unique dance form that expresses the themes of Hinduism, including the legacy and devotion towards the Gods and Goddesses, as well as moral values stemming from epic tales. The facts or entities that make up the domain of Bharatanatyam are so broad that raises it raises the question of the realism and anti-realism of Bharatanatyam. In this paper, I will be utilizing Brock and Mares framework of realism and anti-realism to construct Bharatanatyam in the realist and anti-realist views. By articulating the realism and anti-realism of Bharatanatyam through the independence axis, I will ultimately show how the anti-realist view overpowers the realist view of Bharatanatyam.
Before I begin illustrating a realist and anti-realist view of Bharatanatyam, it is important to establish facts or entities that are within the domain of Bharatanatyam. While the domain of this ancient Indian classical dance form is quite broad, capturing ideas and concepts as early as 200 BCE, I will be focusing on key entities that are critical to the discussion in this paper. The name of the dance reveals two key entities of the domain — Bharata and Natyam. The first term is a mnemonic consisting of bha, ra, and ta which respectively means emotions and feelings (bhava), melody (raga), and rhythm (tala). The second term, Natyam, is a Sanskrit word that translates to ‘dance.’ Hence, the dance form consists of bhava, raga, and tala. In addition to these entities that make up the domain of Bharatanatyam, legends on the Gods and Goddesses are included in the domain. It is believed in legends that Lord Brahma revealed Bharatanatyam to the sage Bharata Muni, who then written down the dance form in the theatrical treatise, Natayashstra. Lastly, a key entity of the domain of Bharatanatyam is the dedication to serve the Gods by performing the dance form. This dedication has been traced back to the Devadasi culture from 300 BCE to 300 CE, where the Devadasis (temple dancers) had a duty to serve Lord Shiva as servants by performing the dance form. It is important that of the entities focused within the domain of Bharatanatyam — bhava, raga, tala, legends of the Gods and Goddesses, and dedication to the Gods and Goddesses — there is an underlying assumption of the existence of the Gods and Goddesses. This assumption is foundational to the legitimacy of the entities within the domain of Bharatanatyam.
So far, I have established key entities of the domain of Bharatanatyam: bhava, raga, tala, legends of the Gods and Goddesses, and dedication to the Gods and Goddesses. Now, I will carefully define realism and anti-realism. According to Brock and Mares, the realism of a domain consists of two theses — the existence and independence theses. The first thesis asserts “there are facts or entities distinctive of that domain”; and the second thesis asserts “their existence and nature is in some important sense objective and mind-independent” (Brock and Mares, 2).
Along the mind-independence axis, the realist would assert that using the underlying assumption of God’s existence, this dance has been passed down by God so that we can dance this ancient form to show our gratitude and dedication to the Gods. And thus, the dance exists outside of our minds and thereby can exist without the existence of human beings.
On the other hand, the anti-realist would argue that even if the dance has been passed down by God, human experiences can influence the entities within the domain of Bharatanatyam, thereby changing the status or intention of Bharatanatyam. For example, a Bharatanatyam dance in India can utilize the same raga and tala as a Bharatanatyam dancer in the United States, but the bhava can differ in expressing the urgency of climate change. The bhava in the dance can be different due to each dancer’s unique perspective and experience of climate change. One dancer can be directly affected by floods and thereby dedicate their dance to Varuna, the God associated with water, rivers, and oceans, begging for the ending of floods that are obliterating crops and other resources. Meanwhile, another dancer may not be affected by floods, but rather affected by prolonged droughts. In this case, the dancer would dedicate their dance to Surya, the God of Sun, pleading for the end of a prolonged hot season and plead to Varuna for rain to produce a bountiful harvest. In this example, we see that human experiences with climate change have impacted the entities within the domain of Bharatanatyam and thereby have impacted the status or intention of Bharatanatyam.
Having considered the realist and anti-realist form of Bharatanatyam, I ultimately argue that the anti-realist view of Bharatanatyam overpowers the realist view of Bharatanatyam. I believe that the realist view of Bharatanatyam is compromised on two grounds: 1) the inability of allowing interpretation as an objective and mind-independent fact, and 2) Bharatanatyam is response-dependent and therefore mind-dependent. Recall that the realist view of Bharatanatyam would argue that the existence and nature of facts or entities of the domain are objective and mind-independent. If the interpretation of things is defined as understanding the sensation and perception of experiences, then interpretation would not exist in the realist view of Bharatanatyam due to the dependence of the mind to produce an interpretation of things. Furthermore, the independence thesis in realism states the existence and nature of such facts or entities are in “some important sense objective” (Brock and Mares, 2). So, the interpretation of things is not only mind-dependent but also does not have objectivity, as is present in mathematics or science.
On the other hand, the anti-realist view of Bharatanatyam allows for the interpretation of things, including the entities within the domain of Bharatanatyam such as bhava and dedication to the Gods and Goddesses. Given that within the domain of Bharatanatyam there is the entity of the assumption of Gods’ existence, it asserts that Bharatanatyam is derived from the Gods. This assertion implies that Bharatanatyam can exist without human beings and their minds. That said, in the example illustrated, the human experiences with climate change impacted the bhava and dedication of Bharatanatyam. At the core of the bhava and dedication is the interpretation of the human experiences with climate change. And likewise, classical examples of Bharatanatyam, such as the dance of a devotee having utmost love for Lord Krishna, still requires interpretation of love to maintain dedication of the dance to the Gods.
Furthermore, the examples illustrate response-dependence, a feature that compromises the realist view of Bharatanatyam. According to response-dependence, a concept F is “response-dependent if and only if there is a bi-conditional…of the form ‘x is F if and only if x is disposed to produce response R in subjects S in conditions C’ that is knowable a priori” (Brock and Mares, 42). So, in the example of the Bharatanatyam dancer performing a devotional dance to Lord Krishna, the domain of Bharatanatyam is response-dependent because Bharatanatyam is disposed to produce a devotional response in the dancer in the condition of dedicating a dance to Lord Krishna. In this case, the knowable a priori would be the dedication of the dance to the Gods since the knowledge of dedication to Gods is a relative concept. Hence, the realist view of Bharatanatyam is compromised on two grounds: 1) the inability of allowing interpretation as an objective and mind-independent fact, and 2) Bharatanatyam is response-dependent and therefore mind-dependent.
In conclusion, I have demonstrated the realist and anti-realist views of Bharatanatyam. I specifically utilized the independence axis to test the extent to which the entities within the domain of Bharatanatyam are independent or dependent on the mind. I have ultimately illustrated how the anti-realist view of Bharatanatyam overpowers the realist view of Bharatanatyam.
Works Cited
Brock, Stuart, and Edwin Mares. “Chapter 1 Introduction.” Realism and Anti-Realism. McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2007a.
— -. “Chapter 3 Local Realism and Anti-Realism: The Independence Axis.” Realism and Anti-Realism. McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2007b.
“Origin of Bharatnatyam.”, http://www.peareylalbhawan.com/blog/2017/08/31/origin-of-bharatnatyam/.
Vaidyanathan, Chella. “Bharatanatyam and Mohiniyattam — Classical Dances of South India .”, July 25, 2011, https://blogs.library.jhu.edu/2011/07/bharatanatyam-and-mohiniyattam-classical-dances-of-south-india/comment-page-1/.