 These methodological choices by dance philosophers reflect normative as well as epistemic commitments (cf. McFee 2018 for another account of dance philosophy normativity). Issues of social power, oppression, and silencing of viewpoints, for example, may be of interest and concern to one group of dance philosophers while another group sees these concerns as external to questions that interest them (such as whether a triple pirouette counts as expert action, say). Finally, as the institutional field of philosophy in the U.S. and elsewhere expands to include non-Western and non-traditional sources of philosophy, such as that by philosophers whose viewpoints were marginalized or excluded for a variety of reasons, what “counts” as the philosophy of dance will need to expand with it. Noticing which domain or sets of domains or non-domains a dance philosopher is working in, which questions interest them, and what counts as evidence for them can go a long way towards avoiding misunderstandings and inapt criticisms of others’ work. This presents both the challenge of the Tower of Babel and the opportunity of a truly rich and multi-cultural dance philosophy world. (For more on the relation between philosophy and dance as well as questions of dance philosophy and interdisciplinarity see Boyce 2013 and forthcoming; Burt 2009; Carroll 2003; Challis 1999; Cohen 1962; Colebrook 2005; Conroy 2012; cf. Cull Ó Maoilearca 2018 [this focuses on philosophy and theatre but there are interesting parallels with dance]; Cvejić 2015b; DeFrantz 2005; Redfern 1983; Foster, Rothfield, and Dunagan 2005; Fraleigh 1999; cf. Franko 2014a [this discusses dance studies and aesthetics]; Friedman with Bresnahan forthcoming; Levin 1983; T. Lewis 2007; McFee 2013a; Pakes 2019; Sheets-Johnstone 1984; Shusterman 2005; Sparshott 1982a, 1982b, 1983, 1988, 1993, 1995, 2004; and Van Camp 1996a and 2009.)