Jul 08, 2006 18:25
as in the more traditional caregiving jobs, the skill that goes into dancing remains invisible until [the dancer does a better job] there HAS to be a more graceful, less clunky and also more concise way of saying that! why can't I think?--the effort becoming visible is recognised as 'a bad job' without any acknowledgement of the value of the emotional labour, or the toll continuous consumption of it might take on the provider... clunky clunky clunky
thus the labour inherent in the social side of dancing (frequently a more important component than the titular 'dancing') goes unappreciated until the effort becomes visible, through wandering attention or a terse response to a genial (if conventional or dimwitted) attempt at conversation on the part of the consumer.
does the value of the labour reside in the customer recipient's ignorance
lalala and then I get side tracked and can't think any more. this has been in my head for ever, since reading the essay in Global Women that talks about care giving to the differently abled, the otherwise abled, whatever the term is, and how the 'better' the service provider is, the more invisible... ah, anyway, I'm onstage. after an audition who announced cheerfully that she's 'hooked' (on dancing, not previous experience in hooking... haha)