3
Choreographies of Relational Abun-dance
“This is the most exciting time to be alive as a California Indian since contact,” remarks Ann Marie Sayers, Mutsun Ohlone Tribal Elder of the Indian Canyon Nation.1
“For me, it’s a wonderful time to be alive,” says Corrina Gould, Tribal Spokesperson of the Confederated Villages of Lisjan Nation (Ohlone).2
“It’s a season of unprecedented possibility. I’m looking forward to seeing how the artists, curators, performers, and other troublemakers will help us understand this moment in all its complexity and potential,” comments Paul Chaat Smith, author, critic, and associate curator of the Smithsonian Institution’s National Museum of the American Indian in Washington, D.C.3
It’s the late 2010s, and Indigenous leaders are seeing Indigenous people doing exciting work awakening Indigenous practices—languages, ceremony, songs, dances, ways of doing and being—kept dormant.4 They describe this as a time of shift and potential.5
Precarity
But things sound different in other circles, where discussions of “precarity” as a contemporary crisis—crumbling infrastructures, not being able to rely on the status quo—abound. Scholar Lauren Berlant, discussing dissolving liberal-capitalist fantasies of “upward mobility, job security, political and social equality, and lively, durable intimacy,” writes about precarity as an idiom for describing a loss of faith in a fantasy world to which generations have become accustomed. She notes how “the current recession congeals decades of class bifurcation, downward mobility, and environmental, political, and social brittleness that have increased progressively since the Reagan era.”6 Others discuss the recent global political movement of the “precarious” in relation to contemporary theater practices around the world.7
In dance studies, discussion of “precarity,” while also prevalent, focuses slightly differently: on the capacities dance has for registering precarity and for maneuvering through the risky economies and working conditions that contemporary dancers face. The editors of a dance journal special issue on “Dance and Precarity,” for example, discuss precarity in the dance profession in relation both to contemporary transnationalism and to a contemporary economic lack of control over time—how “taking a time-out in this post-Fordist regime entails the risk of missing opportunities.”8 The articles in this issue address ways dance is shaped by and negotiates this era. They address topics including the aesthetics of precariousness and dance as its archive,9 working conditions in dance,10 and the material conditions of dance and artists’ “production within contexts shaped by neoliberal notions of freedom, ideologies of liberal democracy, and the logic of global capitalism.”11 In other publications, dance scholars look at how dance has tools—like flexibility—that enable it to strategize around the precarity that neoliberalism has brought.12 There is a sense, throughout much of this discourse, that the conditions for dance making under the Nation state(s) did once serve the dancers under discussion at least somewhat better, and now do no longer—and that dance has capacities to register, negotiate, and archive this shift.
This approach—finding spaces of possibility in contemporary precarity and its shifts of terrain—is likewise animating various scholarly endeavors discussing the “Anthropocene.” “What do you do when your world starts to fall apart?” asks Anna Lowenhaupt Tsing.13 “We hear about precarity in the news every day,” she continues. “We can’t rely on the status quo; everything is in flux, including our ability to survive.”14 She goes on to unpack the relation of precarity to the temporal understandings embedded within belief in “the forward march of progress” and the ways progress is embedded “in widely accepted assumptions about what it means to be human.”15 Looking at other species, including mushrooms, Tsing instead notes and suggests following “other temporal patterns” that “never fit the time line of progress” and have been ignored.16 “Indeterminacy, the unplanned nature of time, is frightening, but thinking through precarity makes it evident that indeterminacy also makes life possible,” she writes.17 Much like Tsing suggests following the temporal patterns that nonhuman species (like mushrooms) embed, scholar Elizabeth Povinelli, drawing from her decades of work with the Indigenous Karrabing Collective from the Northern Territories in Australia, suggests possibilities in Indigenous understandings of the beingness of entities (like ancestor-rocks and water). She notes how these conceptualizations of beingness are radically different from precarity-inspired Anthropocene questioning of distinctions between “Life and Nonlife” and that a “self-evident distinction between Life and Nonlife” is crumbling.18 In these understandings, she notes, “entities can turn away from each other and change states.” She adds, discussing geological shifts happening now on this planet, “in turning away from each other, entities withdraw care for each other.” This understanding, she suggests, turns attention from a focus on humans’ precarity on the planet to the question of “what formations we are keeping in existence or extinguishing.”19 Povinelli writes, “As we become increasingly captured by the competing claims of precarious natures and entangled existences, a wild proliferation of new conceptual models, figures, and tactics is displacing the conceptual figures and tactics of the biopolitical and necropolitical.”20
Indigenous voices around these issues sound some of these same concerns and register similar possibilities in the indeterminacies emerging as “precarity” brings models and figurations beyond those of coloniality into greater relief. Yet, when the “our” is understood to center—or even just to register the ongoing presence of—Indigenous peoples, the idea of this “precarity” (not being able to rely on the status quo, everything being in flux) as a contemporary crisis is almost amusing. For Indigenous peoples in, say, what is for now called the United States, this is hardly a “moment” of precarity and hardly new: the “precarity” of not being able to rely on the status quo is the status quo and describes a much longer time frame than post-Fordism or a few decades before or since the Reagan era. That the creation of precarious living conditions for Indigenous peoples, via the taking of Indigenous land, life, and resources, is at the core of colonialism, settler colonialism, and ongoing coloniality is a well-established truism. Precarity is not (just) “the condition of our time” but “part of colonialism’s ongoing project,” scholar Kathryn Yusoff explains. “The Anthropocene might seem to offer a dystopic future that laments the end of the world, but imperialism and ongoing (settler) colonialisms have been ending worlds for as long as they have been in existence.”21 Patrick Wolfe’s now familiar discussion of settler colonization as structure, not event, applies to “precarity” not as a recent catastrophic state but as the ongoing structure of European colonization’s relationship to Indigenous peoples and lands.22 What is different here is seeing European and Euro-American settlers’ lives as precarious (different, at least, in Eurocentric perspectives, though not, arguably, in Indigenous ones, where multiple prophesies, from so-called ghost dance to Maya, speak to this Euro-American/ist dissolution).
This so-called moment of precarity, for those attentive to the expansive, more-than-human, and more-than-Life/Nonlife core of relationality that Indigenous communities have long been articulating, in other words, is one in which conceptual possibilities that coloniality has depended on quashing are instead being revealed and are displacing the conceptual figures that coloniality has long attempted to impose on Indigenous peoples, lands, and ways of understanding.
One such Euro-colonial conceptual imposition onto Indigenous peoples and ways of being—alongside progress-driven temporalities, a separation of human and nonhuman and of Life and Nonlife—is precarity itself. Multiple Indigenous scholars have noted how a focus on smallness, remoteness, stasis, statistical insignificance, and lack of resources undergirds colonialism and the justification of settler colonialism and dependence on larger, wealthy nations. Seeing Indigenous peoples not as vibrant, mobile, and expansively connected across lands, waterways, and cosmos—as abundantly relational and resourceful—but as shrinking, disappearing, and on the verge of crumbling is an ongoing colonizing trope. Fijian-Samoan scholar Epeli Hau’ofa’s work on the “Oceanic imagination,” for example, argues that such a vision of Pacific Island states was a precondition and conclusion of (neo)colonialism, offering instead an understanding of space that, as Margaret Werry summarizes, encompasses “not only land-surface but sea pathways, cosmogenic space, the heavens, and the resource-rich underwater world” held together “by extensive networks of trade, marriage, and warfare, past and present, sustained by constant exchange and constant travel.”23 Mishuana Goeman, in her discussion of the generative (re)mapping that Native women writers undertake, traces maps of “intricate mobility” and the connections—rather than separations—it enables, including her own Seneca iron-worker family’s mobility; how it troubles a urban–reservation divide; and how this causes her “to question the very acceptance of colonial spatialities.”24 Mvskoke geographer Laura Harjo’s focus on spatiality likewise registers the import of relational connection across scales, between human and nonhuman, local and celestial.25
In other words, an imposition not only of precarious living conditions but also of narratives that only see precarity, stasis, and separation—and that disavow ongoing Indigenous sufficiency, sustainability, ways of understanding connectivity, and abundant omnipresent relationality across scales of time, space, and matter—has long been part of the tool kit of coloniality.26 Discussing Indigenous peoples and lands as isolated and contained in small (and smaller and smaller) spaces and numbers—as precarious—is a familiar Eurocentric worldview.
Abundance and Abun-dance
A contemporary focus on Euro-precarity brings into compelling relief how dance as a way of knowing is grounded in the generative possibilities of durational, ongoing, physical, relational practice: the ability to respond in the moment, to shift, regroup, and regenerate in felt and ongoing relation with one other in relation to change. Such dance-based ways of knowing preclude thinking of “precarity” as a site only of lack and trauma. It becomes, instead, like this moment for Indigenous leaders, a site of possibility. Dance and political economy scholar Randy Martin’s theorizing of contemporary precarity, via discussion of multiple contemporary dance practices, focuses on just this: how dance’s “derivative” capacities create possibility out of ruination. His use of the term derivative references it as an instrument of finance: as characterized by constant change, like interest rates or rates of exchange between currencies.27 “Moving through disequilibrium and divining ways through spaces made for infinite possibility are what dance does best,” he notes.28 Focusing on these capacities for negotiating and crafting from risk, Martin reappraises dance’s “derivative” capacities—including “capacities to direct the flows of life, which might have appeared scarce,” as instead “a kind of abun-dance.” He touches on contact improvisation, hip-hop, and boarding cultures like skateboarding and surfing (“an indigenous (Hawaiian) practice”), writing, “The underlying sources of pedestrian, slave, and indigenous bodily practices are decolonized from their initial terms and settings. The postmodern dancers, hip hop artists, and boarders who by tradition would be assigned to populations at risk also craft corporal economies where risk counts as its own reward.”29 Martin argues for the potential of the risk inherent in these bodily practices to negotiate shifts and to “spin webs of creativity out of precarious conditions.”30 In this and other of his scholarship, Martin offers, as glossed by Susan Leigh Foster, a “suggestion to think from within an economy of plenty about what dance has to offer. By locating dance’s energy as a sign of plenty, even abundance, . . . we are able to contemplate a kind of richness that we are often encouraged to ignore.”31
This call to think from within an economy of plenty is likewise animating scholars working in direct relation to histories of colonization. Theorist David Lloyd, arguing that this “time of crisis” is “in fact a time of abundance,” questions neoliberal/capitalist decrying of scarcity at a time of rampant accumulations of wealth and notes the fear abundance imposes on capitalist structures. “Where one hedge fund manager can earn $5 billion and pay only 15% in capital gains tax, we know there is no scarcity of means,” he notes.32 Lloyd links a projection of scarcity to long-activated myths of colonization and capitalist consumption, connecting colonization to a capitalist need to reduce abundance to scarcity as a means to control and exploit. He writes of this as “the theft not only of material goods, but also of the possibility of imagining a future not determined by the indenture of debt or the terrorism of scarcity and catastrophic illness, unemployment and homelessness; it is the violent denial of the capacity to envisage an alternative to the sheer determining brutality of contemporary capital.”33 (As Laura Harjo notes, “speculation is a form of action that empowers community to trust in their collective knowledge—their embodied knowledge—to conceive of what the lush promise means to them and how to produce it”34—a perspective affirming this power of “the capacity to envisage.”) Scholar Candace Fujikane argues similarly that, while capitalism is narrating scarcity, a focus instead on abundance gives rise to coalitions of interdependence that cultivate political and ecological restoration. Fujikane focuses on the sacred mountain Mauna Kea in Hawai‘i and attempts to build on it a massive, eighteen-story Thirty Meter Telescope (TMT) projected to have a footprint of eight acres and reaching twenty feet into the earth. Drawing on historical maps, she notes “the settler state’s view of the summit as a ‘wasteland,’ a denial of the abundance that is Mauna Kea,” contrasting this with the rich relationality in “a mural map that restores the abundance of Mauna Kea, a deeply sacred place, the wao akua, realm of the gods, and the piko that connects Papahānaumoku, Earth Mother, and Wākea, Sky Father, as well as past and future generations of Ōiwi.”35 For Fujikane, seeing this abundance and working in broad-based alliance from it are core to the future-imagining that (as in Lloyd’s analysis) capitalism violently denies.
These approaches shift focus from honing skills in flexibility to find spaces of possibility within precarious neoliberal structures defined through scarcity to turning away from these structures toward the future-imagining speculations of possibility in the coalitions of interdependence and relationality existing abundantly among beings and entities.
Similar discussions around shifts of this kind are circulating vibrantly in Black studies and around Afro-futurism. Stefano Harney and Fred Moten, writing about “fugitive planning and black study,” narrate a disconnect from a misguided belief that being flexible and open to changes in what they term “policy” will inoculate one from precarity, toward a cultivation of felt connection and interdependence among those in what they term the “undercommons.” Rather than arguing for flexibly embracing change as part of a buoyant, shared hope for participation in a commons, in other words, Harney and Moten narrate the people-spaces beneath the modern structures and institutions on whose lands and labor those structures were built (“Modern logistics is founded with the first great movement of commodities, the ones that could speak. It was founded in the Atlantic slave trade, founded against the Atlantic slave”36). They note how the calls for “contingency, risk, flexibility, and adaptability” made by “policy deputies” promise rewards for those who embrace change—but this “in reality arrests them in contingency, flexibility, and that administered precarity that imagines itself to be immune from what Judith Butler might call our undercommons precariousness.”37 In resonance with Martin’s “abun-dance” (where “the derivative brings to notice the potential impact issued from seemingly minor variations”), however, Harney and Moten draw attention not only to the precarity of the policy deputies’ promises that being flexible enough will enable one to join the commons and eschew precarity but also to the however-inadvertent gift—the potential impact—of shared visceral sensory connectivity that “our undercommon precariousness” has made common. Invoking the slave ship, they write, “To have been shipped is to have been moved by others, with others. It is to feel at home with the homeless, at ease with the fugitive, at peace with the pursued, at rest with the ones who consent not to be one.” They add, “The hold’s terrible gift was to gather dispossessed feelings in common, to create a new feel in the undercommons.”38 They describe this “feel” sensorially, through skin, flesh, ear: “a way of feeling through others, a feel for feeling others feeling you,” naming it “hapticality.”39 The undercommons is a space in which bodies are thrown together and denied but respond to one another on and through the touch of each other, and where possibility resides in this sense and touch.40 There is in this not (exactly) a hopeful framing of abundance and possibility in the connective movements of bodies thrown together in the hold. But there is an awareness of the relational connections happening, and possible, in the undercommons and an “invitation to build sentimentality together again, feeling each other again.”41 “This is love for the shipped, love as the shipped,” they write. In Harney and Moten’s formulation, then, there is within the foundational structures of “undercommon precariousness” an invitation to feel, “a feel you want more of, which releases you,”42 felt in relation with others.
Following these approaches, what is bemoaned from Eurocentric perspectives as a contemporary crisis of “precarity” is instead bringing to light the strength and ongoing abundance in relationality: in the richness of relational interdependence with others, including nonhuman entities; in the releases that come through feeling and sensing what is here, together, in feeling (with) each other itself. Harjo’s discussions of felt (and smelt) knowledge—“which is experienced and embodied”—emphasize its force as “a critical aspect of community experience,” tied to its capacity to build together. “Felt knowledge is a critical aspect of community experience, and if we fail to recognize what we feel . . . what do we truly build or create?” she asks.43 This facing toward the relational abundance in felt connectivity thus turns away from the structures that depend on scarcity and lack, or even negotiating a path through them. In so doing, it speculates—and empowers—possible futurities and otherwise worlds both beyond and already in this here and now.
Dance has massive practical tools for shifting focus from what may have appeared scarce toward an attentivity to the abundance in relationality. Dancers have honed capacities for feeling and sensing one another viscerally within and beyond their physical bodies, for responding to shifts without guarantee, for creating in relation to the unknown, for envisaging and then mobilizing. As scholars like Martin have argued, dancers can activate these tools not only to negotiate within the colonizing neoliberal Nation state but also in ways that implode its project. For example, Martin first links the risk-taking capacities of several contemporary dance practices to a capitalist economy predicated on managing and rewarding risk. But he also links them to this economy’s undoing.44 He argues that, as various populations faced with precarity turn from capitalism and instead “mobilize new expressions of liberation, affiliation, and organization,” “these shifts will bring about the formal demise of this vertically integrated colonial reach.” “This rupture,” he continues, “takes a course in dance from the pedestrian elaborations of Judson Church to the risk-taking pyro-technics of contact improvisation.”45 Martin adds, “What begins to be ruined in this moment as well is the very dreamscape by which America can be imagined.”46 Of course, as numerous dance scholars have also noted, dance practices’ capacities for sensing and feeling other bodies, for mobilizing in relation to shifting conditions, and its capacities for finding spaces of possibility in risk are not inherently tied to an undoing of colonialism, capitalism, racism, and the nation-states built upon these. Dance scholar Susan Manning’s (and others’) work on Weimar dance clearly links danced mobilizations of bodies to Nazi ideologies and movement choirs. This is not to argue, then, that any dance, let alone postmodern and similar dance, is inherently decolonial due to the way it practices a capacity to shift in relation to the conditions that constitute it and thus engenders an embrace of risk that cunningly and paradoxically undoes the very derivative systems built via investments in risk. Rather, Martin’s analysis suggests that we look cautiously and perceptively to how dance (he is looking at postmodern dance, contact improvisation, a multitude of practices gathered under the term somatic, as well as hip-hop and boarding cultures) offers touches of opportunity for coming together in felt relation to one another as a turning away from a world that the current neoliberal economy of risk has banked upon, and enact otherwise.
In what follows, I turn to ways some Indigenous dance makers access and assert the abundance of worlds based in an abundant relationality. Some of the ways they do this include cultivating attention to the felt knowledge and sensory information that may not be visible (portals, dreams, ancestral presence, realms other than what “settler time” calls here and now), or may seem lost or missing (language, lifeways, histories of violence that have been washed over), or may not be seen as valid (historical knowledge held in the retelling of stories or in the making of, say, baskets; knowledge generated in community dialogue and in other acts of interacting, including humor, jokes, teasing—ways of being held in ways of visiting, including protocols for coming onto others’ lands, feelings, and intuited knowledge). They turn away from what is seen as scarcity, absence, loss, missing, to enact the strength in stories, structures, and practices of relational durational connectivities.
I’ve written elsewhere about dance works that embody this. Tanya Lukin Linklater’s Women and Water (2008) provides an experience for participants—however fleetingly—of time and place and ways of being in interrelationship to others that is intrinsic to Alutiiq (and many other Indigenous) understandings of time and of relationship.47 In that performance, which took place outside on a lawn of the University of California, Los Angeles campus, under a tree, near a fountain, Lukin Linklater engaged with the subsistence-infused kind of time that her father and many other Indigenous peoples still today live in, an expansive kind of time, in relation to cycles of the day, month, and year and the interconnections and migrations of all kinds of creatures. “Subsistence is what makes us who we are,” Lukin Linklater said. “Our dances and songs and stories were and are tied to subsistence. Living off the land really has to do with a series of intimate relationships between humans and other nonhuman persons.” Her performance of Woman and Water created a chance to experience, briefly, for an instant or two, interconnection to the land and to one another, of time felt in relation to cycles of these interconnections, to a community that, like a family, would always house and feed you. Women and Water engages Alutiiq cosmology in her dancing as a bird crossing the boundary between land and water and in engaging humor as a way of connecting across barriers. In it, Lukin Linklater engages in acts of caretaking and hospitality, feeding her audience, either literally or through the labor of her physical body, marked with/as that which sustains. She gifts her things to others, embodying a relation to property outside of capitalist systems. “I still see it as an alternative way of being,” she explained. “Colonization is only one piece of the larger story.”48
I’ve also written about how Kahnyen’kehàka (Mohawk) Nation choreographer Santee Smith’s early work Kaha:wi (2005) projects a sensual embodiment of Haudenosaunee creation, enacting ongoingness and what I can now apply Rifkin’s term “timescales of inhabitance” to describe.49 Performed in a museum that is also a major U.S. archive (the Smithsonian National Museum of the American Indian), Kaha:wi performs not museumification and preservation of what is threatened, scarce, or gone and thus needs to be collected behind glass but ongoing regenerative abundance presented in and as dance performance. In so doing, it inscribes the museum space not as containing but as activating anew, through bodies that are both young and sensual and in nonhuman realms. The piece tells a story of the life cycles—life and death and birth and life again—of Haudenosaunee people. Its set depicts trees evoking the Tree of Life, which gave entry to the beginning of life of earth and which references the Haudenosaunee creation story in which the Celestial Tree lit up the sky world, from where Sky Woman fell to earth. Designs on the trees and elsewhere on the set depict Haudenosaunee two-curved lines.50 It begins with life emerging into physical form and includes coupling, death, and birth scenes that foreground women’s sensuality and joyfully celebrate ongoing Haudenosaunee ways of being and knowing. It shows a world animated with human and spirit beings and a linking of earth and sky (thus layering the flattening of the terrestrial, to follow Cree scholar Karyn Recollet’s work51) embodied as lived Mohawk tribal and family history, as ongoing and fertile within cycles of life and death,52 and as reverberating out in sensed sonic layers from where it was performed. It has hymns sung in Mohawk and Cayuga and gorgeous music Smith commissioned from Indigenous musicians. It uses space—both the way bodies move through the stage space (circular floor patterns, movements in the four directions) and the spiraling movement of bodies in that space—to confirm its Haudenosaunee spatial understandings.
These works signal epistemologies of time resonant with what Harjo so compellingly names “kin-space-time envelopes.” In this framework, grounded not in the historical timelines of “settler time” but in sensory and perceptual capacities, sensations and relations orient collective experiences of time.53 The recurrence of feeling, perceiving, and story—in present as well as ancestral realms—composes duration. These ways of being and becoming foreground not only continuity (ongoing presence, abundance as frames that include disruption) but also perceptual tradition and sensation as central modes of understanding in these “thinking and feeling time’s unfolding” frameworks.54 In these, they forward an abundance of connections with others accessed across physical and temporal realms.
Emily Johnson/Catalyst
In the rest of this chapter, I follow multiple reiterations of Yu’pik dance artist Emily Johnson/Catalyst’s multifaceted work SHORE. I focus on SHORE’s activations of seen and unseen ongoing relational abundance and the responses and responsibilities it has generated through its travels. Some of these, I suggest, lie in its (seemingly at times) muted Yu’pik focus—and in the practices of watching, sensing, attending to an expansively interrelated universe it requires as this presence, at first perhaps not seen at all, comes forward into fuller view. This function, I suggest, haunts the structures on which Indigenous (as) precarity has been placed—disappearance, colonial capitalism, settler timelines—refusing its terms and instead generating meaning beyond them, in instances of clarity, connection, and comprehension that then fade and recede, and then recur and reexist. I thus attend to the choreography of SHORE not (only) in the crafted bodily movements that happen on proscenium stages as part of its “PERFORMANCEs” but also in the movements of the work SHORE itself: in the movements of bodies (including my own) that SHORE directs in the locations, and in relation to the locations, where it lands and in the movements of SHORE from location to location, across territories, as a visitor to others’ Indigenous lands and in the relations to one another these require and generate. I narrate the choreographic movements and enactments of SHORE itself: the feel for each other—both human and nonhuman entities—that this “dance work’s” movements in location and across location teach us to attend to. To return to Martin, these include the work’s capacities to shift, to create in relation to the unknown, and to “craft corporeal economies” based in risk and uncertainty but in which feel for one another enacts, through its fostering of felt interrelation, abundant worlds we have been encouraged to ignore—and may not at first see.
Emily Johnson has been making dance for decades. She emerged to high acclaim in the Minneapolis dance scene in the 2000s and 2010s, later relocating to New York; she has a growing recognition that extends nationally and internationally, including (among many awards) a 2012 Bessie in Outstanding Production, a 2014 Doris Duke Artist Award, and a Guggenheim Fellow in Choreography. She describes herself as “an artist and writer who makes body based work” and who is “originally from Alaska.” Her bio explains that she is of the Yup’ik Nation and “tied to the landscape of South Central Alaska where she was born and to the Yukon-Kuskokwim delta where her family is from.” It notes,
For the past 18 years [twenty-five plus years now], city living has swirled around her, dragging her away from the physical space of Alaska; the summer and fall family rituals of hunting and fishing, then smoking, drying, canning and freezing food. She is pulled back when Midwesterners and others ask her if she lived in an igloo (myth), if she has an Eskimo name (no), and if it is OK to say the word “Eskimo” (rarely).
Johnson’s trilogy of works, The Thank-You Bar (2009–11), Niicugni (2012–13), and SHORE (2014–15), engage, sometimes more and sometimes less directly, with her Yup’ik identity, family, history, and cultural stories. The Thank-You Bar, developed in part through a residency at the Maggie Allesee National Center for Choreography (MANCC) in Tallahassee, Florida, is, according to a MANCC video, about “home, displacement, indigenousness.”55 It is “a story that asks, ‘What is a true home?’”56—a question propelled by Johnson’s own life away from Alaska but seen and explored in broader relation. “I live away from my ancestral home and that geography, and so, there’s a little bit of unrest there. And I think that displacement is something that all beings know something of,” Johnson says about the making of the piece. Research for it included consultations with biologists about animal behavior in response to displacement from their homes (learning how animals move their homes and adapt) and “roving experiments,” or choreographic explorations with dancers inhabiting space, and then leaving, and then asking “what of us is left there?” when they change location. The performance itself displaces its audience, asking viewers to leave their chairs, take light boxes they’ve been handed, and circle around Johnson, who is on the stage in a kiddie pool, in the habitat she’s created on that stage for that hour, while she tells a story about blackfish, who live in deep, cold water in Alaska. Her visceral, sensorial telling of the blackfish story, drawing the audience physically around her so the story’s felt affect reaches them too—connects the realm of that deep, cold water and the kiddie pool in the theater as scales of one another. The piece, she’s said, is “about finding home where you do find yourself.”57 Placing herself in the pool, narrating a story about blackfish living in a bucket and never dying, enacts her own relationality to this fish and its capacities for survival in multiple locations of different scales, from bucket to kiddie pool prop to ocean.
The enactments of Johnson’s relation to her Yup’ik family, to Yup’ik relationality, and to the locations and communities in which her performances are enacted, part of The Thank-You Bar and of Johnson’s second piece in the trilogy, Nicuugni, continue in the third part of Johnson’s trilogy, SHORE.58 The stage dance performance aspect of this work is only one small part of its iteration, with an ongoing and expansive process of creation, production, and community connection as much (if not more) its focus and core as the stage work itself. Here this expansiveness beyond the stage dance choreography is explicitly marked as such: in each of its occurrences, SHORE includes “STORY” (a curated reading), “PERFORMANCE” (a dance piece performed in part on a stage), a “COMMUNITY ACTION” (coordinated volunteer acts), and a “FEAST” (a community potluck). And this week, itself, is only a part as well: multiple experiences lead up to this week of intensified performance, and reverberations from it continue in blogs and an oversized zeroxed ‘zine (with photos, essays, and recipes) that circulate after the week’s events and in later enactments of the SHORE endeavor.59 SHORE, “PERFORMANCE,” then, is presented and interwoven as just one relatively small part of a continuing project imbricated with the everyday lives of the communities in which it is presented, itself part of a trilogy that was first presented five years earlier and begun years before that. Its structure articulates how the relationality between what happens on stage and what is around it are iterations of one another: the friends you listen to and talk with; the food you eat; the ground you walk over on your path to the theater; the riverside earth you walk along and dig your hands into the day after the show; the multiple permutations that infuse and reverberate in multiple directions and temporalities around it.
SHORE in Minneapolis
I see SHORE first at its premiere in Minneapolis in June 2014. I don’t know Minneapolis well, though I know there is a strong, vibrant, politicized Native presence here. It’s a beautiful evening in that soft, warm, summer-in-the-Midwest kind of way. At the start of SHORE, “PERFORMANCE,” on the grass of the University of Minnesota campus, Johnson, with masklike circles painted in red around each eye, walks around with a sign that says “Gather Here” and greets some of us individually. It is both part of the performance and saying hello. A line of people down the way are singing tones without words that infuse the air, walking slowly in our direction, permeating the space with a sense of calm and awe. Then, climbing up on a pedestal, Johnson tells a story. It starts with a tree just down a ways from where we are sitting. It was there three hundred years ago, she says. “I think I remember that tree in my bones.” Then she tells about a dream she’s had during the SHORE production process, involving an eagle and a hawk and transformation: the eagle turns into a hawk, and the hawk, in front of it, turns into an owl, and the owl turns into a baby, so that the hawk (that was the eagle) is holding on to the baby. Next Johnson tells us about a few days earlier, when she was rehearsing, and she looked up and saw a hawk and a plane lined up high above it as if they would collide, and she had a sudden memory of the ground shifting beneath her feet. “I was here, and I was home. I was the tree, and I was me. I was alive, and I wasn’t yet born.” We squint upward. The story has us seeking and sensing the connections across time and space and entities she is telling about—how she is, to again cite Laura Harjo’s work, “jumping scale” from this here-and-now realm into others, above and below, dream and not dream, between human and other-than-human: tree, bird, not-yet born.60 “This is awesome,” she says, looking around at us all. “I’ve been trying to think of the most joyous moment in my life, but I wasn’t sure what it is. I think it might be right now.” People cheer. If we could all help each other get to the theater together, that would be really great. “And—if someone could help me down?” We have all exchanged our tickets for name tags. We have been welcomed, with our connections to her and to each other—and beyond, to the nonhuman world layered all around us on that campus green—recognized and acknowledged. Of course we’ll help her down.
Figure 22. Emily Johnson in SHORE, “PERFORMANCE,” Minneapolis, Minnesota, June 2014. Photograph by Erin Celeste Duffy.
Once we get inside, the line of singers continues to intone, and things remain both blurred and connected between multiple realms, like in the story Johnson has just told. We see the rigging on both sides of the stage; we see the costume changes; we see someone sitting on a stool the whole performance and then pulling a rope so that fake snow flutters down. The costumes don’t really look like costumes, at least in parts, like where the dancers wear bulky parkas over their outfits. The choreography doesn’t really look like choreography, at least in parts, like when the dancers do this hunched, galloping move, coming into and out of patterns and into and out of paths of contact with one another, back and forth across the stage. Watching, I have no idea what the pattern is. It seems both random and not random. The dancers turn and make sounds with their bodies; Johnson slaps on the ground with her feet. “If I could just . . . reach . . . a little bit . . . more,” dancer Aretha Aoki, wearing red, and red eye paint, and a mustache, says, lifting her leg higher and higher. Krista Langberg, the dancer in orange, flails her arms before making across-the-diagonal contemporary-dance-recognizable Impressive Dance Moves.
Figure 23. Aretha Aoki in SHORE, “PERFORMANCE,” Minneapolis, Minnesota, June 2014. Photograph by Erin Celeste Duffy.
The next day, at the “COMMUNITY ACTION” (which involved cleaning up along the Mississippi riverbed and planting native plants along its shore), while we are hunched over planting seedlings in the rain garden next to each other, Johnson explains to me about the parkas: one of the studios they worked in was cold, so they put on parkas. The parkas became part of the piece. The feet slapping? That is the sound of basketball, her first love—the sound basketball makes, feet on the court, running. And the patterns I can’t make sense of? Those are from basketball: the dancers watched and learned the paths of one Chicago Bulls game, the 1991 championship with the LA Lakers. Johnson says it’s always somewhat arbitrary how you make choreographic patterns, so why not choose the paths a player makes in a basketball game as the ones to follow?
In other words, however puzzling the parkas looked to me, they were part of an experience accumulated in the piece and had meaning for those involved. However indecipherable the galloping pattern looked to me, it had a clear meaning to Johnson in relation to her personal, family, and basketball-loving history. There is clarity here, however murky my grasp of it. Later, Michael Tsosie explains to me how Native dance always has a purpose and a meaning. It is a visible display of concepts that are entirely legible within the community in which it is made—though perhaps not so legible outside of it, he says.61 Johnson’s basketball galloping, I come to see, signals this meaning making in a quirky and hilarious way. Even as it commits wholeheartedly to it (those dancers were committed to those pathways), it also signals its illegibility (I doubt many watching in Minneapolis in 2014 caught the specificity of the Chicago Bulls 1991 championship paths). Johnson could make it explicit, so the audience joins her in understanding what these paths are about. Or she can refuse that desire for comprehension and (literally) just embody the pathways of this game, as she does with such commitment, knowing they’re there, in the choreography, whether everyone sitting and watching sees it or not. The piece, in other words, shows a layered stage where all the relational movement that is and has been happening in and around it registers and where audience desire to comprehend is of little regard.
These meaning-full presences across time and space, that you may catch, or not, appear as well in the ways aspects of Johnson’s Yup’ik identity pop up in the piece. Early on, a huge, bright red curtain drops behind the Choir group that stands in rows before it. They shimmer in its glow, and two side panels descend, with photographs of Johnson’s family’s fish strips scanned and overlaid upon one another to create an abstract pattern. The word “Que’ana” is written on one: a version of “thank you” in Yup’ik (actually a misspelling, she tells me, as the known way, now, to spell it is “quyana,” but “Que-Ana” is how her grandma spelled it on the sign at her bar in Alaska, which is also the “Thank-You Bar” of the first part of Johnson’s trilogy62). Within the abstraction, in other words, are specific references to Johnson’s Yup’ik identity, in flickers. Then the red curtain and fish side panels rise, and it’s gone, and there’s Langberg in orange doing swoopy dances, with clawlike hands, neck arched up. Later, a five-year-old boy with a braid down his back, in long shorts and high-top sneakers, does grass dance steps across the floor before rejoining the Choir across the stage. I sense Yup’ik presence in the dreams, in the singing and drumming, in the parkas, in the evocation of birds traversing these realms (they seem like birds, the three main dancers, in their bright colors and red-masked eyes, though maybe Aoki, with that mustache, got caught halfway in the transformation process between bird and human, between male and female? Maybe she isn’t—maybe we all aren’t—only what we first appear to be?). Yup’ik stories, language, presence, cosmologies, seem deeply infused into the piece, whether or not Johnson points it out so we viewers can all recognize it.
Figure 24. Emily Johnson, Krista Langberg, and Aretha Aoki in front of the Choir, with “Que’ana” panels, in SHORE, “PERFORMANCE,” Minneapolis, Minnesota, June 2014. Photograph by Erin Celeste Duffy.
These performed, performative assertions of relationality permeate SHORE, “PERFORMANCE.” Toward the end of the piece, Johnson kneels at the front of the stage and tells another story, about a whale. “The whale enters the room, opens its mouth, water pours over its teeth, out the door and down the stairs,” she says, but before she gets too far into the story, the singers who flank the front parts of the stage (they are there always, sitting or humming or singing or taking sips of water) sing loudly and forcefully over the story, repeating parts in ways that drown it out. All we get are snippets. Yet, as it repeats, it starts to make sense, if I listen hard enough and with more attunement within the cacophony and don’t get distracted. It gives a sense of something big—of loss and yearning, of ache to return to a mother-like, womblike embrace. The rest of the piece embodies these muffled connections and dreamlike flashes of definition and asserts them as crucial, and central, and entreats us to trust in their import even if we don’t fully hear, grasp, or understand. Things feel blurry, though not uncertain—just difficult to delineate. We sense the connections we still and always have had—to one another, to the human and nonhuman and once-were-human entities around us—as well as the yearnings for connections that, at any given moment, may not be quite so clear. On the pedestal at the start, before asking us to help each other get inside, Johnson says, “I think that our future, if we want it to be, could be really joyous.” SHORE, throughout, blows on these glowing, hope-filled sparks. It calls out the possibilities in the sensed connections: in the flashes, in what is there and what can be seen and felt, in the realms we can connect with—and, too, in the uncertainties and blurriness and things you can’t quite access and times you don’t know: the ruptures from legibility. That is part of it, too, because acknowledging the blur prods you to trust the meaning in connection, to trust you can leap over into other times and realms, even when you can only hear and feel the tone and not quite the words.
Figure 25. Emily Johnson in SHORE, “PERFORMANCE,” Minneapolis, Minnesota, June 2014. Photograph by Erin Celeste Duffy.
SHORE, a title that names that liminal space between ground and water, traversed by birds who can cross between them, evokes both a sense of yearning for connection (we want to hear, we want to remember, as Johnson says in the whale story) and these layers of connection (“I was here, and I was home. I was the tree, and I was me. I was alive, and I wasn’t yet born”). And the piece entreats us, even if we mostly live in this moment’s fog, with only glimmers of understandings of these other realms—the dreamed memories from other times and manifestations, before being born, hundreds of years ago, as a tree, as a whale, the sounds of our mother’s womb, a championship basketball game—it’s all there, and we can get there, perhaps even easily. Perhaps we already are there. What we see and hear, and clearly, here in this realm (and on this stage) and on its surfaces, isn’t necessarily where we have to stay or where meaning lies. Isn’t it exciting? Within the fog is fun, and brightness, and basketball, and joy.
SHORE in Lenapehoking
In April 2015, I take part in SHORE, “COMMUNITY ACTION,” on Governors Island in New York, which involves working with the Billion Oyster Project to restore the oyster habitat in New York Harbor.63 I spend the morning shoveling oyster shells so they can bleach in the sun (which takes about six months, Sam Janice, the oyster project guy tells us) and cleaning trash. We meet to learn more about the project and its plan to reintroduce habitable oyster habitat into New York Harbor, in the hope that oysters will inhabit it. “It’s really up to nature if it’s going to work or not,” Janice says. “Nature bats first and last and all throughout.”
After we hear about the “restoration research” students are undertaking, Emily Johnson talks about oysters, and abundance, and the abundance of oysters. “Oysters were a staple food for Lenape,” she says, “so bountiful and such a base for the ecology.” Then she talks about rooftops and how “they used to be so totally accessible, not so sectioned off and not so fancy.” Like oysters. She says she’s been thinking about how abundance here has shifted, from everyone to the few. “I mean, it’s all going to shift again, right?” she asks us.
At lunch, the man I sit next to says he didn’t know anything about Johnson being Yup’ik or this having anything to do with Indigenous stuff. “What do you mean, Indigenous?” he asks. I talk about how (thank you, Mary Louise Pratt), yeah, it’s a troublesome term, it basically means who is here before the colonizers arrive. “Before that, they’re just the People, right?” I say. “Emily is Yup’ik. So interesting that you didn’t know that.” Later, this conversation repeats, with others, almost verbatim. We talk about SHORE’s name here, SHORE: Lenapehoking, which no one at this event knows (here in April 2015) is a Lenape term for this territory.
Figure 26. Opening of SHORE in Lenapehoking, “PERFORMANCE,” April 2015, at PS 11 in Chelsea, New York City. Photograph by Jacqueline Shea Murphy.
At the performance the next day, we gather at PS 11 on 21st Street, are given name tags, and stand around. It is really cold, and some people are wrapped in red yoga blankets as they wait. Johnson is playing basketball with some kids. She makes almost all her shots, with some impressive blocking too. The rest of us are milling around, taking it all in, smiling at each other. Is this the show? A group of performers (I presume they are performers) are huddled in a mass at one end. They are looking out, staring quietly. Along the street are performers (I presume they are performers too) starting to walk by, evenly spaced apart from one another, with a measured step-forward-then-back cadence so that they are all in rhythm. They intone a bell-like sound with their voices, filling the streets and calling our attention. Johnson is still playing basketball, so we are watching that too, and the huddled group is still huddling. But it is becoming clearer that this is the performance event: we are already in the midst of it. The Choir makes its way, one by one, into the space and lines up, its resonant vocables filling the air. The huddled group breaks and starts running around. All of us are wearing regular street clothes, dressed for going out seeing art in this weather, so it’s the sense of purpose to their running that indicates they are part of the show.
Johnson stops playing basketball and goes up to a tree where there’s a podium stashed and carries it down. She asks someone to steady it and climbs up to welcome us all. She tells the story about the birds, and the baby, and the tree, and memory. The text is exactly the same as the text in Minneapolis, almost, except she points to a building and says it was a pigeon she saw that made her think of this dream. Then she tells us that we’re going to walk together to the theater, and the directions, which follow the path of the creek that is underneath us—we won’t see it, but it’s there—around this street, that corner, past the sex shop, past the three ducks, turn here. And she asks those of us who can walk (otherwise, we can make it to the theater on our own) to do so together, in silence.
Attending to the path of the creek beneath us feels familiar. In the Conjuring Future Joy workshop Johnson led a few days earlier at Gibney dance studio, we practiced this attention to what is there beneath us: we closed our eyes and felt the spaces between our feet and the floor that we stood on, down through the building’s floors and through the concrete to the wet earth beneath us, and from there spreading through the earth and outward, to each of the buildings and the trees and all that is also supported by the earth. As we walk along the streets of Chelsea, along the path of a creek we cannot see, I feel the workshop’s link with this walking we are doing now: following a path with an awareness of what Esselen writer Deborah Miranda describes as connection to the land felt through the “underground rivers that never see the light of day, but run alive and singing nonetheless.” Along the way, guiding us, the Choir singers stand in groups and regroup again along the route; the sound of their singing lingers. Others walking with us carry small wooden boxes with white fur on them that seem alive. They wiggle and chatter and rattle. It feels as if we are floating. The quiet of our movement together fills the streets. Others walk by, talking, not seeing us, it feels, or barely noticing, wrapped up in their conversations. I keep an eye out for the sex shop, chuckling when I see it. Once in a while, the people in the street look at us as if to say “what’s that?” for an instant, before continuing along.
I feel spectral, in these streets, as twilight falls, quietly seeing and taking in all that is there, and has been, in these streets. These are the streets of the car accident that killed my father, I realize: not far from here, streets like these, with these layers of footfall and sound and sparkle. Except death is not quite death in this realm, just another layer of presence. My heart leaps and calms, walking enveloped in this hum of sound, this river of bodies, spectral and earthly, these sparkling New York streets with people laughing and talking and eating behind the glass of restaurant windows as we pass by in silence, mostly unremarked, but there en masse. I arrive at the theater in an altered state and weave through the lobby into the performance space (though isn’t this all the performance space?).
Inside, the Choir members are already on stage, and we snuggle into our seats. It is warm inside, and cozy, and the seats are graded so we can see the whole space, and are part of it, looking down. My glasses fog from the shift in temperature. On the sides, smoke is coming in along the floor, and I feel in a cloud, enveloped, like we are here in this dreamscape realm, with these performers, these Choir members, watching us as we arrive. The performance is about to begin, except it already did, back before, and well before that even. The theater space feels intimate and comforting. Women in pairs face each other, making little whimpers like sex but not exactly sexual; I think of throat singing. I write in my notes: vision of a world in which women are in charge. The basketball part starts with just the sound of stomping feet, and then a sportscast recording: we hear the names Magic Johnson, Michael Jordan, the words Chicago Bulls, LA Lakers. It’s much clearer, in this version, with this voice-over, what the patterns are. Throughout, I have a sense of increasing clarity, which also accompanies a sense of misty obscurity and of clarity in obscurity: an awareness of presence even in what isn’t seen. Maybe it’s because I am in New York, where I was born, where I’ve lived, a space that has always had a yearning, spectral presence for me (as opposed to Minneapolis, where I have almost no connection). Maybe it’s that I’ve seen the piece already, so its obscurities are starting to clarify. Maybe it’s the piece’s clarifications. At any rate, I feel almost embarrassed at all the layers I can sense now that I couldn’t see before.
I return the next night with Aunt Judy, who is awesome, and with whom I am staying. As we walk through the streets, we are quiet and floating through, looking, walking. Nobody notices us except now and again, startled. They are all there going about their lives. The sky is luminescent. I think again about the streets, and the theater, as liminal space between here and there, now and gone and not yet born, and about the stream singing beneath us. I think again about what is seen and about what is not seen. I think about how this piece is not asking for audience recognition or waiting for us to catch up to what it is clear about.
Figure 27. Lenapehoking SHORE, “FEAST,” April 2015, in Greenpoint, New York. Photograph by Ian Douglas.
“It’s sort of an experience,” Aunt Judy says afterward. We talk about how much we loved the walk over from the school to the theater, in silence. She says it felt so calming and beautiful and moving, and how wonderful to watch everyone watching (or not watching) us all walk, and oh! To walk through those tenements, and all the layers of history that were there, and feel “the spirit, or whatever it was. Just so powerful.”
On Sunday, I go to SHORE, “FEAST,” with a friend. We are all asked to bring some food to share and the recipe for it; I make a kale salad. It is being held at Newtown Creek, a tributary of the East River, and a hyperpolluted Superfund site that is being cleaned up. They are offering canoe rides out to the river from it. There are loads of salmon and oysters, lots of salads and roasted vegetables, wine in a wooden box, local beer in a keg, and lemonade. There are kids running around. There are squares of fabric where you can write what you want for yourself, your family, your community, and hang them on a clothesline. There’s a small letterpress poem you can take. We canoe, and eat, and sit by the fire, and watch them shuck oysters and cook sockeye salmon, and talk. There are lots and lots of people there. When Jack Gray shows up—he had performed in the Choir—he says, “Who are all these people?” and I turn and say, well, this is Shawn, who I met oystering on Friday. Shawn (Shafner, I learn his name) joins in and laughs and jokes with us. It is like we know people now.
In Lenapehoking, SHORE’s muffled, foggy glimmers—what’s scarce, unseen, ruined, spectral, missing, in between, gone, there only in flashes—start to shimmer more brightly and to seem, somehow, almost magically, not actually so absent or even so in between, but still here and like this feast, with its oysters and friendships, a sign of plenty, even abundance.
SHORE in Yelamu
In August 2015, SHORE comes to where I live: the San Francisco Bay Area. This time, I make it to SHORE, “STORY,” held at Rob Hill Campground in the San Francisco Presidio. The night before, Johnson and I had been invited to a Bear Dance ceremony being held at the campground by Rumsen Ohlone chief Tony Cerda’s dance group, who is up from Southern California, where they now live, and where there is a weeklong culture camp happening for Native youth and families from the region. As the sun goes down, the fire shines out against the blue ocean sky, gorgeous, and Tony Cerda and his group sing songs for the water, the women, the trees, the hummingbird. Pomo dance leader David Smith speaks of how he has come to support. Razzle Dazzle (Richard Raguda), a Shingles Springs Miwok Dancers traditional leader, is there as well, participating. When we are invited into the circle, he blesses us, with a little teasing. The next day, I arrive back at Rob Hill early and talk with Mary Jean Robinson, who runs the Webworks: Voices of the Native Nation radio show on KPOO 89.5. We talk about stepping forward and stepping back and how there is a time and a place and a need for both. She tells me there’s an Ohlone dance she loves that is about the ocean waves coming in and out that is like that, that forward and backward rhythm. We talk about the hopes and plans for a cultural center and for a place for Native Elders to live. We share some gluten-free cornbread I’ve brought and relax. In a bit, we share dinner with everyone (roasted chicken, beans, chili, salad, my cornbread, an amazing peach coffee cake). Later we gather up a ways, around a fire. That is where SHORE, “STORY” opens, with songs from Natalie Smith, with her dad David Smith singing too. Then Tria Blu Wakpa (then a Berkeley grad student) reads a poem while her husband, Blu, performs alongside in sign language. Then we hear from a man who talks about us being there in the Presidio, and about his family from the Philippines, and reads a wonderful piece about his travels and connections. Johnson, kneeling close to the fires so it glows on her, tells the blackfish story from The Thank-You Bar. Razzle Dazzle tells a Coyote story.
Figure 28. SHORE in Yelamu, “STORY,” August 2015. Photograph by Jacqueline Shea Murphy.
No one here is unaware of an Indigenous context to SHORE, “STORY” in Yelamu.
I also take part in the “COMMUNITY ACTION” part of this SHORE. It is at Hunter’s Point/Candlestick Park, with Literacy for Environmental Justice (LEJ). I bring my three children along, and we plant native grasses and pull up mustard, which is a nonnative plant. LEJ leader Anthony Khalil says, “They want a monoculture. We are striving for biological diversity. . . . These complexities are evolving as we speak.” He talks about his Filipino relatives and how they planted. “Some of these plants have kept their native names,” he said, mentioning islay cherry as the main pit fruit indigenous to this region. He says the point, what they are striving for, is “not to restore what was but to look towards what could be.” We also learn how to twine—using raffia—making a loop on your finger and holding it in your mouth, then twining them both in one direction and crossing them in another. It takes me three tries to figure it out. It feels joyous to be outside in the sunshine, digging and working and near the water. I know many of the people here now. At the closing circle, Johnson offers a Yu’pik word that means the currents under the water where all you see are the ripples.
Figure 29. SHORE in Yelamu, “COMMUNITY ACTION,” August 2015. Planting native plants at Candlestick Point. Photograph by George Slavic.
Figure 30. SHORE in Yelamu, “COMMUNITY ACTION,” August 2015. Learning to twine at Candlestick Point. Photograph by George Slavic.
As we are leaving, I am talking to activist and organizer Neil MacLean, who has worked with parts of the Ohlone community for decades and has helped organize these connections with SHORE in Yelamu. Johnson comes over. “Did he tell you about last night?” She says, “That was the performance. That was SHORE. The rest is just—” She waves her hands to say, the ripples.
The night before, twenty or so of those who had been at the Rob Hill campground came to ODC Theater (a major site for contemporary dance in San Francisco) to see Johnson there and learn some about what she is doing. They ate pizza together and had a mini tour of the space, and then, kind of impromptu, they had a song exchange: Johnson and the SHORE cast shared the whale song from the piece, then David Smith’s Pomo dance group got ready to share a song. But they hadn’t brought a hand drum with them so said they can’t do that part. But wait, SHORE director Ain Gordon said, here, we have a timpani, would this do? And so the Pomo dance group offered a Pomo song, on a timpani, in the ODC Theater, in an exchange that was able to happen because of how they had been sharing fireside at Rob Hill, at the “STORY” event: because they’d gotten to know each other some and had begun to build relation. Then Smith’s group asked Johnson to see part of her performance, and Johnson and the dancers shared an excerpt—the basketball section, with the voice-over. MacLean said the kids got it right away. “Which player were you?” they asked Johnson. On the way back to the campground, Razzle Dazzle—who had been dancing for twenty plus years—said he understood the whale story and could connect with Johnson’s piece through that plea for the whale, and that he’d never seen modern dance before or ever been in a theater like that.64
On SHORE, “PERFORMANCE” day, I arrive at ODC early and sit next to MacLean and right behind Bernadette Smith, AJ, her son, and Flavio, her nephew, for the last part of tech. Bernadette is stepping in to perform. She is in regalia, with a long black dress and a head piece with beads that cover her face. Dave Smith asks Johnson, “Do you have a hairdryer?” and I chuckle—his hair looks great—before he adds, “I need to heat the drum, it’s not sounding right.” Johnson points to the stage lights on a pole—those lights get really hot, you could try putting it there? Bernadette’s voice is powerful and moving and fills the space. Then it’s time to go to the alley, where the piece will begin. On the way, we come up to a homeless woman sleeping on a red couch. As we get near, Bernadette, carrying her clapper, says, “We should sing for her, Dad!” But Dave has walked too far ahead to hear, so we keep walking by, and Bernadette claps the clapper over the woman, who continues to sleep.
The alley is covered in bright graffiti murals, gorgeous art with powerful messages, shimmering with energy. People—not connected with the show, just passersby—walk through, as more and more SHORE attendees (we are wearing our SHORE name tags) start to gather. I take lots of pictures—of the space, the huddled SHORE dancers, Dave resting against the mural wall holding his drum, talking to Neil, to Bernadette. AJ and Flavio are interested in all the sneakers flung over the wires above. Then the intonation starts; the singers at one end of the alley, with the high aaaaaaaahhhhh, start slowly to walk in, first from one side and then from the other. The space quiets; we stop our chatter; people (even those walking through, unconnected) realize it’s a “thing” that’s happening (except one woman, getting pulled by her two dogs, yelling “No! Sinister! Come on!”—if I didn’t know better, I would think that part was scripted too). Then Johnson arrives with her sign, “Gather Here,” and holds it high overhead. More and more people stream in. The high, eerie aaaahs echo clearly in the alley space; it has good acoustics for this. Bernadette, in her headdress (she is wearing a different one for this part of the piece, in the alley), and her dad, hugging his drum, are just part of the group. The SHORE Choir members are walking through the space, three steps forward, two back, advaning slowly. Johnson arrives with her pedestal and climbs up. She has positioned herself under a giant bougainvillea. Its pink petals are gorgeous, and she looks stunning among them but is kind of entangled. “I picked a kind of difficult spot to put myself!” she laughs. She said she has a story she wants to tell—she’s told it before—she points to me; do you remember that story I told you about the tree? She talks about Candlestick Point, about yarrow and islay cherry. She talks about, before the Mission was called the Mission, before Mission Creek was covered up, the ground there. At the end, she tells us the route we are going to walk—out the alley, left of Sycamore, past the grate where, if it were really raining (it has been sprinkling some), Mission Creek would bubble up, toward the ocean where the whales are gathering, past the burger joint, where she hears the mango shake is really great (but don’t get one now because there isn’t really time, come back tomorrow), toward the mountain. She again asks us to walk together, in silence.
Figure 31. SHORE in Yelamu, “PERFORMANCE,” August 2015. David Smith, Bernadette Smith, passersby, and SHORE Choir. Photograph by Jacqueline Shea Murphy.
Figure 32. SHORE in Yelamu, “PERFORMANCE,” August 2015. Walking in silence. Photograph by Natalia Perez.
It is twilight, and the sky, which was pink and gold in the alley, has become that blue luminous color. It is so much lighter than at this time in New York, of course, because that was winter and here it is summer, and dusk, and we are on clock time: 8:00 P.M. is when the theater starts. It gives you a sense of distance, this walking in silence through the streets, with people around going about their lives, along the path of the creek that isn’t bubbling up now but is there beneath us. We float by people around us, smiling at how they seem so wrapped up in their concerns. A woman walks past us, elbow lifted, cell phone to ear. “When will you get here? When?” she screams into the phone. We laugh. It feels scripted too. Choir members, carrying the furry music boxes, travel with us so the sound score comes along too, reverberating in my chest, creating the space between us as one of connection. Inside a Laundromat, I glimpse people lifting their arms toward the walls, twisting, bending, crossing space, like dancers. Johnson comes to walk with me and, as we walk under a sign for the Star Hotel, points up and whispers, “We’re going under the stars! Tomorrow that’s going to go in my show.” I see the ODC director, Victor Gotesman, give a panhandler money. Bernadette, walking ahead up a ways, shakes her clapper, that sound score drawing us along together.
When we make it back inside the theater, Johnson is onstage, in her yellow suit, wearing a leg brace (she is having a knee issue). There is no smoke: Aoki has pulled her hamstring, and the smoke would make the stage too slippery, Johnson told me earlier. It is smaller than the stage in New York, or Minneapolis, and I am closer in, in many ways. Aoki, in the back, between the timpani drums, breathes heavily, then comes out to do her high leg lift, except she lifts it only partway, and holds: “I am going to stay,” she says. “Keep staying.” She holds in that bent forward position. “It’s different!” she laughs. “Different.” Then she falls forward. I wonder how the rest of the audience is reading it and if I would be willing to trust that there is meaning in it, however inscrutable, if I didn’t know about her hamstring. She still does the running handstand, and we hear the sounds of her hands squeaking on the Marley floor and how she says “I’m glad you’re here” to the tall woman from the Large Cast who holds up her legs. The Que’ana fish strips drop, then the red cloth, and the Large Cast dancers stand and sway before them, and the singer raises her hand. Next is the bird–claw–hand section, Langberg’s hands again like claws, back arching. Bernadette Smith emerges onto the stage, and her voice rises and blends into the Large Cast voices. Dave Smith hits the drum, singing her on. Langberg supports her from behind, Aoki holds her hands, and Johnson holds Aoki’s. Bernadette is a gifted performer, holding one arm out, with the clapper, compelling our attention, directing the energy. In the basketball section, there is a soundtrack of feet stomping, in addition to the sounds made by the basketball dancers’ feet. The Large Cast on the sides stomps too. As three dancers bring plants across the stage and then walk slowly, eerily, back across it, the basketball dancers gallop around them. It’s as if they don’t really see each other. Dave’s grandkids, in front of me, are restless in their seats, squirming. Bernadette keeps giving them the stink eye to behave. In the snow section, when Johnson and Aoki take off their suits and change, Flavio covers his eyes. Johnson keeps her back to us. She throws a cloth over Aoki’s head, and they dance that way. Downstage, Johnson slaps her own chest, and it sounds like she’s crying.
Figure 33. SHORE in Yelamu, “PERFORMANCE,” August 2015. Krista Langberg, Bernadette Smith, Aretha Aoki, Emily Johnson, and Dave Smith. Photograph by Natalia Perez.
I am struck, watching, by how little this performance piece matters. It is intriguing, and impressive, and a little funny, but, as Johnson has said, just a ripple of what SHORE in Yelamu is getting at.
Afterward, in the lobby, a colleague I’ve run into meets Johnson and talks about how good it is to be reminded about this land, and what is on it, and the waters underneath.
In response to all this energy and connection, Johnson and the SHORE crew ask ODC to move the last planned performance of SHORE, “PERFORMANCE” to the beach where we had volunteered, to overlap with SHORE, “FEAST.” Eventually ODC agrees. Many from the Bay Area Indigenous and Indigenous arts communities come out: Point Arena Pomo, Central Valley Miwok, Pajara Valley Ohlone, the Pomo-led world beat music group Audiopharmacy, San Francisco–based dancers from Dancing Earth. “Patrick [Orozco] set the blessing, setting the center spirit pole, surrounded it with bear, coyote, raccoon, and deer skins. He led his group in six songs each introduced by stories about his life and the history of his people,” MacLean writes me about the event.65 “Mary Jean [Robinson] welcomed and introduced all the participants as they entered the arena: SHORE, Miwok, Pomo, Ohlone, followed by Anthony Khalil and Noxium (aka Brother Nature) from Literacy for Environmental Justice. . . . They gifted rattles to dancers who had shown keen focus. They described the campground they are going to build beneath the mound we had filled with new native ancestral plants.” Then Johnson’s Choir sung the whale song from SHORE, and Johnson performed a solo dance in relation to her Choir.
Figure 34. SHORE in Yelamu, “FEAST,” Candlestick Point, August 2015. Ama Ka Tura (“People of the Land”) dancers, led by Patrick Orozco and sponsored by the Pajaro Valley Ohlone Indian Council. Photograph by Natalia Perez.
No one who comes to this event, with its exchanges of California Native songs and dances, its setting, its context, could miss the Indigenous context of what SHORE in Yelamu is doing, even if they didn’t know this when they bought tickets to see a contemporary dance work they thought would be in the theater at ODC.
Figure 35. SHORE in Yelamu, “FEAST,” Candlestick Point, August 2015. Suzette Smith dancing a friendship dance called the Rabbit Dance from the Miwok people, with a member of the SHORE crew. Photograph by Natalia Perez.
SHORE in Narrm
I miss SHORE in Seattle (Dᶻidᶻelaľic̆/Dkhw’Duw’Absh) and in Johnson’s home community in Homer, Alaska (SHORE in Tuggeght). But a year and a half later, in May 2017, I make it to SHORE in Narrm (Melbourne), where I have been invited as an “International Delegate” to the National Indigenous Dance Forum, which dovetails with the twelve-day Yirramboi First Nations Arts Festival that includes SHORE. Here in Narrm, which I’ve learned is the Wurundjeri word (Wurundjeri are the Indigenous people of the land on which the Arts House theater where SHORE, “PERFORMANCE” will happen is situated in relation to the river) for that part of Melbourne, Australia, which is very far away from any place I’ve called home.
The first day of SHORE, “COMMUNITY ACTION” is at a park helping an organization called WeCycle fix bikes, recycling them for distribution to members of refugee communities and others in need and reducing landfill.66 It starts with a welcome and a discussion about the name of the park where it is being held, Batman (which references a colonizer, not the masked avenger), and how they are in the process of naming it an Indigenous name. I attach lock holders to bicycles that are going to St. Joseph’s Flexible Learning Centre, which is a specialist secondary school for young people who have disengaged from mainstream education and which is located just up the road from Arts House. Johnson has been working at St. Joseph’s regularly on her trips to Melbourne over the past two years. Day 2 of SHORE, “COMMUNITY ACTION” will be developing a school garden there. That evening, SHORE, “STORY,” held at Arts House, on a platform with potted plants, in the context of all the vibrant abundance of Indigenous art spilling out everywhere at the Yirramboi Festival, feels a bit contained. I listen politely. Some of the readings are beautiful.
Figure 36. Emily Johnson in SHORE in Narrm, “PERFORMANCE,” May 2017. Photograph by Bryony Jackson for Arts House.
It is late autumn here in June, so the next night at SHORE, “PERFORMANCE” in Narrm, we start in the dark. We are given flashlights (which double as our tickets) and head up into Royal Park, where there is a majestic and giant tree that has been half illuminated for the show, stunning and luminous against the night sky. As we gather together (near a “Gather Here” sign framed in lightbulbs), the SHORE Choir stands around its giant trunk wearing light bladders around their necks (they are plastic, rectangular pockets bulging with light; I think of them as light bladders). Johnson stands on her pedestal and tells her tree–hawk–eagle dream story and points to a tree, down a ways, and about the sense she had that she was that tree and was herself at the same moment. Her stories, the dark, the moonlit sky, this shimmering half-lit setting, again tune our attentions to layers of connection and distance: to our rustlings here on earth, to the tree and bird beings around us, to other worlds—the stars, the multiple scales, high and low, big and small. Alert to these layers and sensing the shifting spaces between them, we walk a long way to the theater, together, through the streets, in silence, the sounds of our feet crunching. “What’s it for? What’s it for?” a group of people shouts to us as we walk. No one answers. On another corner, a woman laughs to her friend as we pass by. “I told you it was art!” Johnson invites them along. They decline but offer her a beer.
Figure 37. The Large Cast of SHORE in Narrm, “PERFORMANCE,” May 2017. Photograph by Bryony Jackson for Arts House.
The theater we arrive at is a large one, though not as large as the one in Minneapolis. The cast is different too, and not just the Large Cast, which is always different, and always in relation to the place in which SHORE is taking place, but the core cast. Aretha Aoki and Krista Langberg aren’t available to perform this time, though they’re not fully gone: I see flashings of them in the two new dancers, like when Langberg’s clawlike hands appear on one of the new dancers, the young woman with a ponytail, just for an instant. And Aoki’s stick-on mustache is gone from the stage, too, though I wonder if the way it signaled the playful way things aren’t always what they first appear, and its nonbinary gender suggestion, might have been transposed to the other new dancer, who is tall, short-haired, and gender abundant. Johnson’s fuller dancing presence is also different. I think she is doing much of Aoki’s role as well as her own: the handstands, the virtuosic leg kicks, the quirky seeming-random-not-random basketball movement. The playful part with the cloth on the head is gone. There is a more present anger: Johnson’s legs slam down with force; the steps are sharp, tight; we hear her breath, her guttural outcries, the sounds and effort and rage of a fuller embodiedness, a tight wrath underneath what looks muffled, this need to tell the stories, tell the stories, in the midst of all this drowning out.
Here we are experiencing the work ensconced within Yirramboi First Nations Arts Festival. It is one small part of a twelve-day festival of Indigenous dance and other arts and is presented and marketed in explicit relation to Indigenous artistic and political histories in Australia. At a satellite forum the day SHORE, “PERFORMANCE” opens, Merindah Donnelly, executive producer for BlakDance (the central organization for Indigenous dance in Australia), speaks about how only 2 percent of arts presenting in Australia is Indigenous and “how that’s not good enough.”67 Yet Donnelly also notes that there are more than one hundred Indigenous choreographers, more than two hundred Indigenous community dance groups, and one hundred thousand Indigenous cultural dance groups in Australia. From a U.S. perspective, being part of twelve days of the Yirramboi Festival, where every speaker and performance begins by stating a wish to acknowledge “the traditional land upon which we are located,” where on one night, five Indigenous dance pieces were happening, feels also like resilience, abundance, reexistence.
This time, watching SHORE within this so-much-more-strongly-stated Indigenous context than it was in Lenapehoking (where participants I talked with didn’t know of Johnson’s Yup’ik identity or of any Indigenous aspect to the work) or in Yelamu (where the piece shifted to strengthen its connection to local Indigenous peoples and land, though this connection was not at the forefront of the framing and publicity around it), I continue to sense SHORE, “PERFORMANCE” articulating a flickering slipstream presence between worlds in which an Indigenous connection is there, but isn’t always seen or heard clearly.68 I still read in SHORE, “PERFORMANCE” a yearning for Indigenous knowledge and connection (to whales, to trees, to other-than-human/once-were-human relations) that is there, and that Johnson is trying hard to access, but that keeps getting drowned out by so many other voices. Here in Narrm, in the midst of Yirammboi, I also feel SHORE, “PERFORMANCE” as specifically coming from the territory that is for now called the United States, and its political history, and the “insignificance, statistically speaking,” of Indigenous peoples in the States, to return to Audra Simpson’s discussion (see the introduction). Here SHORE feels to me not (only) Indigenous in a broad sense that connects peoples around the globe similarly affected by British/European colonization but also Indigenous in a specifically U.S. way, where Indigenous presence is so deeply counted out. I feel this in its instantiation of an Indigenous presence sheathed in obscurity even as it is clearly there. And in its anger. Here I find myself thinking about the “broken song lines” I’ve heard talk of in various Yirramboi discussions. I think about SHORE: Narrm not as a song line, which is specific to Country here, but in a related way: as an embodied voicing of Indigenous stories that cross, and also don’t cross, from territory to territory, shore to shore, with attention to the trauma, and import, of those emergings, groundings, voyages, stoppings, and carryings-on. I think about the way SHORE carries the residues and energies of major U.S. metropolises—Minneapolis, New York, San Francisco, Seattle—as well as of Johnson’s home in Alaska, and their contemporary dance scenes, and their Indigenous presences and erasures.
I think about Narrm turning toward these stories from this visiting Yu’pik relative from across the waters. In Narrm, I read SHORE as a vision of Indigeneity vibrating with ongoing Indigenous presence while tuned also to experiences of pervasive Indigenous invisibilization, and with the multiple layers of what living this invisibilized presence is like for U.S.-based Yup’ik dance artist Emily Johnson living in spaces of what today is called the United States. Here, to me, watching this time, it seems so very U.S. This includes the ways Johnson’s Yup’ik self is at its very core central, constitutive, but also muffled, so that you might leave scratching your head, wondering if you saw it. The context of this surrounding situation (this Yirramboi Festival) registers and amplifies its flickerings—and also brings out the parts of the story that are rooted elsewhere and don’t quite cross over.
A number of times throughout the Yirramboi Festival in for-now-called Australia, I hear Indigenous people say, we have been here thousands of years—sixty thousand years, at a minimum.69 We survived the Ice Age. We have deadly tools for survival. Two hundred years of colonization? That’s nothing compared to the skills we have. I think about SHORE as Johnson’s offering, from the Indigenous lands of for-now-called the United States, put forward as cultural exchange on the traditional land of the Wurundjeri and Boon Wurrung people of the Kulin nation, with its millennia of Indigenous resilience and practices of ongoing sustainability (practices that, several speakers note, include recognizing the power in art, song, dance, performance). This is Johnson’s story, her song, her danced contribution to this global gathering and its conversations: it is the story she brings and offers. SHORE registers here within this festival’s context of scarcity, precarity, tremendous loss—many of the voices I hear and performance pieces I see throughout the week speak of loss, violence, trauma, in the context of ongoing British settler colonization of these territories (only 2 percent of programming is Indigenous, as Donnelly notes; it is still, statistically, small). And SHORE registers as part of this festival’s simultaneous performance of sufficiency and abundance, including all these inspiring Elders and youngsters, and the abundant possibility that Indigenous resilience, intelligence, and creativity yields (a hundred Indigenous Australian choreographers!) and the resilience of connection to one another it offers.
SHORE in Narrm asks us to step back, take a breath, consider where we’ve come from, where we’re standing now, prepare. “Gather, we have gathered, and for now we’re here,” the performance closes. This time, on the pedestal under the tree, before she asks us to help her down and to walk together in silence to the theater, Johnson says, “I’ve been trying to think of the most joyous moment in my life. I’m not sure what it is. But I’m ready.” SHORE in Narrm is an experience of being attentive, alert, watchful, balancing with an open heart on that teetering space between confused and curious, with deep awareness of where you came from, the territory you’ve traversed since then, the Country on whom you’re standing now, and all you do and don’t perceive about the spaces and beings and entities around you, and the joy, and anger, this attentive experience can (and will, it is coming) bring. It’s about listening, watching, acknowledging Indigenous land and presence, and how it is—or perhaps isn’t—acknowledging you. And being ready. Change is coming, and it’s risky, but there are possibilities for an otherwise world already here.
In Johnson’s trilogy, the “what of us is left there?” of The Thank-You Bar and the “How do we listen to each other? To the land?” of Niicugni move from that Yup’ik term for listening and attending to a broadly open call, in SHORE, to inhabit the world, in all its realms, in this attentive and aware relational way that functions beyond the structures that muffle and discount Indigenous abundance, conceptual formations, ways of feeding and tending to and weeding and caring for each other, in all their formations of existence. Its pieces move, repeat, layer, one part echoing into another, continuing durationally across time and from place to place, through breaks and ruptures. It’s not about a linear timeline but about connecting with different parts that recur and resonate, and knowing that they are still there, even when muffled, reexisting as we turn our attentions toward them. In this, it engages the layered multitemporality that is part of what Martin terms “abun-dance.” Martin writes, “Rather than appearing merely fleeting and ephemeral in performance, dance is the concatenation of varying durations, of reaches near and far that nestle among the moving bodies.”70 He, like Johnson’s work, links this multitemporal abun-dance to “a momentary realization of the future in the present.”71 His “abun-dance” registers how dance—which in Johnson’s performance work is activated expansively to include stage choreography with its distilled clarity of concept, as well as all our embodied movements through space, including piling oysters and fixing bicycles and planting herbs, and physical connections with one another, sharing food, and stories, and time together—provides deadly tools for “moving through disequilibrium and divining ways through spaces made for infinite possibility”—not (only) to negotiate the disequilibrium and precarity of these spaces but to enact beyond them.
SHORE offers the possibility, if even just for an instance—an afternoon, a flash of a sense, a new person you’re meeting, a joyful-energy-charged conversation—of an otherwise way of being in which our entangled, attentive interconnectivity with each other as human and more-than-human entities—humans, trees, hawks, whales, stars, streams, ancestors—enacts each of our existences, which can fade back or sparkle forward in time and space, become enlivened or shift into another state, depending, in part, on where we are walking and what we are paying attention to, and what is paying attention to us: on where we are connecting.72 It provokes our attention to the ongoing presence of entities we see and don’t see—including streams beneath the concrete, family members who have passed on, our not-yet-borns—and to ways of being and knowing, seemingly absent but there still, if transformed, in the stories and streets around us. In its plantings and potlucks and story sharings, SHORE gives us a nudge to practice turning toward and caring for each other as a way of keeping in existence in our current form and in our relations to other forms of being (whales, trees, streams, waterways, oysters, native plants), which our tending to also helps keep in existence—presuming, and hoping, that those forms decide to attend to us too. But we can practice so that, perhaps, they do. SHORE faces us toward experiences of sufficiency-as-abundance: enough time to be together, enough food to share, enough space, enough connection to others, enough caring and giving. It also acknowledges the realities of rupture, confusion, refusals, shifts, drawings back, muffled awareness, and incomplete understandings, where things change in relation to where we are facing and what we are paying attention to and how whatever we are facing is facing us and paying (or not paying) attention to us.
These practices and presences are here, in SHORE’s multilayered, multitemporal movements of relational abun-dance, even if we squint to see, and strain to hear, or can’t find easy understanding. SHORE’s plantings and feastings and walkings and dancings layer in wisps of loss and grief and yearning and anger wrought in part by a colonization-fueled neoliberalism, yes. But this is not a new precarity, or even a precarity at all: it is a different way of being, rich in relational capacities and expansive connections and coalitions of interdependence that are vibrant, durational, and enduring. SHORE opens up possibilities for us to catch glimpses of these sensings and enactings of relationality-as-abundance, these ways of existing-in-relation outside of an imposed scarcity or precarity, perhaps, if only in momentary instances, to instantiate them anew.