Session W1-2
Location: Room L101
Time: 12/26 11:00-12:30
Moderator: Ya Mei Chen
W1-2-1
Application of BF & Effort theoretical practice in the course of general study in a medical university
Presenter : Ya Mei Chen
Abstract
1) Research motivation:
The research looks to engage students in the general study course of a medical university, in exploring the body, through the use of BF and LMA Effort theory. Start by understanding the individual’s own body, gradually progress to observing other’s body. Then, through learning content, develop the awareness of one’s own internal and external actions and be curious about the actions of others. It hopes to explore the BF in Laban movement analysis and LMA Effort theory through experiential practice.
2) Research Method - How to use LMA/BF:
-
BF Exercise and Exploration - Perform Basic 6 & 6 Body Organizations exercises with teacher demonstrations, skeleton models, anatomical images, teaching tools, and partnering touch.
-
Introduction to Effort Theory - The group discusses Effort exploration in daily activities, and through teacher’s verbal cues, teaching tools, body games, etc., to explore Effort.
-
Request students to reflect and write their own body experiences, perceptions, and observations of others in narratives journal every week.
3) Research Expected results：
It is hoped that through this process, students will be able to perceive themselves and observe others at the same time, open up their keen awareness and establish empathy, and analyze the theoretical foundation and connotation through Laban movement Analysis, and then through reflective writing, they can stimulate the physical and mental connection, One's physical experience and philosophical thinking are connected in series, and finally, they can be reflected in one's life through practice throughout the semester.
W1-2-2
Embodying the “Devadasi” Dance: Questions of aesthetics, representation, and positionality
Presenter : Premalatha Thiagarajan
Abstract
I learned a rare Tanjore Quartet composition in raga (melody) Huseini recently. I regard it is a privilege to have learned this piece from Zamin Haroon aka Chandrabhanu, originally a Malaysian but he now resides in Melbourne as an Australian citizen. He is one of the few senior dance practitioners in the diaspora who has learned the dance piece, which used to be part of devadasi (temple dancer) repertoire, and had preserved it. When the dance was transmitted to me, I was strictly instructed not to modify any movements, and as such, acquired the choreography in its “original” form. The process of learning this piece opened a new horizon in terms of the pedagogical and learning style. I learned gestures, body language, and narratives surrounding the lifestyle of devadasis in the past. While embodying the dance of the devadasi, I was made aware of the aesthetics of choreography, representation, and my own unsettled positionality. I realized the changes in narratives, moods, and movements. In this paper, I would not only speak about the process of learning the dance, but how this piece and the learning process have also offered me a critical reflection of the changes that have occurred to Bharata Natyam, with emphasis to the practice in Malaysia.
Keywords : Devadasi, aesthetics, representation, and positionality
W1-2-3
Querying Agency and Authority in Somatics
Presenter : Rebecca Weber
Abstract
For many years, somatics researchers have attempted to define the shared tenets of practice across the broad range of somatic practices (including Enghauser, 2007; Johnson, 1986; Brodie and Lobel 2004; Berardi 2007; Batson 2009; Weber 2009; to name a few). Many somatics practitioners have made claims that somatic practices contribute to a sense of agency and autonomy within clients/students (Johnson 1983; Batson & Schwartz, 2007; Bearson, 2005; Green, 1999; Weber, 2018; Weber, 2019; Fortin et al., 2009; Williamson, 2009; Lond, 2002; for some examples). This presentation questions the assumption that facilitating individuals’ sense of agency and autonomy is a fundamental meta objective of somatic practices, asking why we, as somatic practitioners, have made this assumption. Further, it will examine whether this assumption is correct--namely, querying whether somatic practices do, indeed, encourage agency and autonomy, and if so, how?
Agency is the feeling of control over one’s own experiences, the ability to make free choices; whereas autonomy is the sense of being a ‘free agent,’ self-governed and released from restrictions of sociocultural norms or directives from a superior. Both agency and autonomy are inherently individualistic attributes, carrying implicit values about the importance of the individual in wider sociocultural contexts. Yet, in many cultures, collective action and community connection/interdependence are considered as more important than individualism. Indeed, as Chatterjee (1998: 278) notes, this distinction is even posited as a nationalist identity or official ideology in some African and Asian cultures. Placing priority on individualistic achievement or capacity is more stressed in cultures that place priority on self-directedness, and is therefore a Western cultural attribute (Kara, 2007). And yet, as somatics historians have noted (Eddy, 2009; Eddy, 2002), somatic practices have roots in a range of non-Western influences, including many Eastern spiritual practices (Eddy, Wiliamson, and Weber, 2014). Thus, a consideration of the socio-cultural context is vital, for as Kampe and Alexander (2017) note there is a ‘problematic historical Euro-centre nature [to] the Dance/Somatic nexus.’ The question arises: does this notion of the value of agency and autonomy actually permeate all of somatic practices? If so, how? And in what cultural systems has this emphasis on individualistic agency and autonomy arisen?
This presentation will consider the philosophical tenets underpinning somatic practices—whether implicitly or explicitly--to examine whether, how, and why autonomy and agency are valued and encouraged in somatic practices. Further, though autonomy and relatedness, as basic human needs, are often thought of as in opposition to one another, is it possible that somatic practices encourage these as compatible traits (Kagitcibasi, 2005)? Taking a pan-somatic practices perspective, accounts from practitioners from a range of practices are examined, and commonalities identified in the pedagogical approach to delivery considered.
