Shall We Dance?

Oct 17, 2024

Imagine a grand ball such as Jane Austen’s Emma attended during the novel’s setting in early 19th century England. Visualize an English gentleman, a lord or a duke, impeccably dressed, asking a lady to join him in a dance.

“Shall we dance?” he asks.

This question wasn’t at all like “Do you want to dance?,” the Beach Boys song. A thicket of rules1 governed ballroom etiquette, rules enforced by the Master of Ceremony. Shall we dance?

A gentleman could ask a lady to dance only if they had been formally introduced through a mutual acquaintance or by the Master, and they could dance together only twice. The Master could adjust these constraints if desired, but not without a good rationale.

Shall we dance?

A book2 could be written it seems—and maybe has been— explicating the conditions required to be met before a gentleman asked a lady. Ladies were obligated to dance, once asked, unless something very unusual had occurred or they had already danced twice with the gentlemen. Much was at stake on the ballroom floor, from blossoming romances to the inheritance of fortunes.

The Master made sure one dance was counted as a set of two songs. In Pride and Prejudice, Mr. Bingley is described navigating the obligations of a marriageable man at the Meryton ball where the equally marriageable Bennett sisters are in attendance. Bingley wants to dance with Jane Bennet. In the book, we witness Bingley enact his role to perfection.

Note that dancing more than two sets with the same partner would have been a breach of etiquette, in part because it would have stoked rumors of an impending wedding:

“So, he [Bingley] enquired who she was, and got introduced, and asked her for the two next. Then, the two third he danced with Miss King, and the two fourth with Maria Lucas, and the two fifth with Jane again, and the two sixth with Lizzy, and the Boulanger…”

The Master had options. He could permit men to dance with men, women with women, if the numbers attending the ball were imbalanced. It’s likely that homophobia wasn’t an issue. Ball goers were primed to dance, and the Master gave them the floor.

Scholarship exploring the life of British poet Lord Byron reveals Byron’s bisexuality, but most people understood homosexuality and heterosexuality as a binary—one or the other, not either/or. Since two gentlemen dancing together at a formal ball as lovers would have been forbidden, such a dance couldn’t have been romantic. The notion of bisexuality was incomprehensible.3

*****

Shall we dance?

The word “shall” is in a linguistic category of verbs called modals used to communicate future actions—possibilities, hypotheticals, uncertainties, intentions, or obligations. Modals are powerful linguistic cues readers have to situate ideas in possible realities. Without them, for example, it would be difficult to express hopes and fears.

“I should dance with Alex” isn’t the same as “I could dance with Alex.” Most of the words are identical: “I,” “dance,” and “with Alex.” “Should” and “could” make all the difference. Defining each of these modals is a bit more work than defining a word like “dance.”

‘Shall we dance’ when voiced by a qualified man obligated the qualified woman to dance. There would be no obligation to marry flowing from the fact of the dance, for that question begins with a different modal “will”: Will you marry me? The obligated female dance partner is not obligated to marry.

*****

In modern English "I shall go later" implies a future intention just like the modal “will” signifies in the sentence “I will go later.” During Austen’s era, “shall” was used with the first person (I, we) to indicate future actions, while “will” was used with the second and third persons. In contemporary English, “will” has largely supplanted “shall” for expressing future intentions across all subjects, making the two sentences nearly interchangeable in meaning.4 5

“Shall” and “will” in ordinary usage today are often indistinguishable; “shall” sounds a bit archaic. In the language of the U.S. Constitution, "shall" is used to indicate mandatory actions or obligations, and the Constitution is almost 250 years old.67

Article 1, Section 3 makes mandatory who has this power: "The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments." The House has its “shall” to bring the indictment as we’ve seen recently. Article II, Section 1 mandates that a newly elected President, "Before he enter[s] on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation..."

In legal contexts apart from the Constitution “shall” expresses a command, often implying necessity or obligation. For example, "You shall do it" expresses an order or requirement—the words “or else” spring trippingly to the mind. "The tenant shall return the keys to the landlord" specifies an obligation. “The accused shall appear at the appointed time…”

***

The meaning of the word “shall” made the national news cycle today regarding counting of votes in the upcoming election. In mid-August, after having been taken over by Trump supporters, the Georgia State Election Board began approving new rules that supporters said were necessary to ensure that votes are properly counted.8

Three of the seven rule changes drew intense criticism from Democrats but high praise from Trump. One rule required that three poll workers hand-count Election Day ballots to ensure the number of paper ballots matched electronic tallies from voting machines. Two rules related to the certification process. One required county officials to conduct a “reasonable inquiry” before certifying results without specifying what that entailed. The other allowed officials to examine all election-related documentation.9

All seven of these new rules were declared unconstitutional today by Fulton County Superior Court Judge Thomas McBurney, who based his logic on the force of “shall.”10 The ruling came in response to a lawsuit filed by Julie Adams, a Republican member of the Fulton County election board, who argued that her role should allow discretion in certifying results.

McBurney dismissed this claim, emphasizing that allowing board members to act as investigators or judges would undermine the electoral process and silence voters. The judge was clear that election boards are obligated to certify the votes—they “shall” certify the votes.11

“As only lawyers (and judges) can, we have muddied and mangled the meaning of the word ‘shall’ in our business,” McBurney wrote in a footnote. “To users of common parlance, ‘shall’ connotes instruction or command: You shall not pass!”

Thanks for reading Learning to Read, Reading to Learn! This post is public so feel free to share it.

Learning to Read, Reading to Learn

Shall We Dance?

Discussion about this post