daly-movement analysis r

7/26/2019 Daly-Movement Analysis R

1/14

Movement Analysis: Piecing Together the PuzzleAuthor(s): Ann DalyReviewed work(s):Source: TDR (1988-), Vol. 32, No. 4 (Winter, 1988), pp. 40-52Published by: The MIT PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1145888.

Accessed: 11/02/2012 07:00

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at.http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

The MIT Pressis collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to TDR (1988-).

http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=mitpresshttp://www.jstor.org/stable/1145888?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/1145888?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=mitpress


2/14

ovement

nalysis

Piecing Together

the

Puzzle

Ann

Daly

Movement

analysis

is

a blanket

term

covering

methods as

wide-

ranging

as Paul Ekman's

Facial Affect

Scoring

Test,

Laban

Movement

Analysis

(LMA),

and

Ray

L.

Birdwhistell's kinesics. The field can

be di-

vided

roughly

in

two. Nonverbal behavior

research

(or

nonverbal

com-

munication

research),

which

focuses

mainly

on

the actions and

structure

of

everyday

life,

has

largely

been

created

by psychologists,

anthropologists,

and

ethologists.

LMA,

which

deals with the

qualities

and

dynamics

of

movement

across the entire

continuum of

performance,

has

its roots

in

dance.

The

interdisciplinary

field of

movement

analysis

is

like an unfin-

ished

jigsaw puzzle:

some of the

pieces

are

in

place,

some not.

The

object

of this

TDR issue

is

to

put together

the

pieces

we have

while

working

toward

finding

those that

are

missing.

My

aim in

editing

this

issue

was

also to

demonstrate the

applicability

of

movement

analysis

across the continuum of

performance,

from

represen-

tational

to

nonrepresentational,

from

trained to

untrained:

theatre,

aes-

thetic

dance,1

social

dance,

ritual,

sports,

aerobics,

everyday

behavior.

The

same

elements

of

the

body-in-motion

apply

to

a

ballet as

they

do to an

assembly

line,

only

the aesthetic

performance

is framed

by

additional

lay-

ers of

convention

(form,

genre,

choreographer, performer).

As a

whole,

the

articles

explore

the

interpretive

richness afforded

by

a

close

reading

of

movement in

any

situation. And

they

set

in

motion a

discussion of

the

larger

issues vital

to the

development

of

movement

analysis

as

a

perfor-

mance

studies

methodology.

Movement

analysis

is

by

no

means new-it

goes

back at

least to Charles

Darwin

(1872)

and Francois Delsarte

(Stebbins

I902).

Both

men

were

fascinated

by

the

relationship

between movement and

meaning,

the

former

in

the

realm of

natural

history

and the latter

in

the world

of

oratory.

Later,

in

the

I940s,

psychologist

Wilhelm

Reich

(I949)

and

anthropologist

David

Efron

(1941)

took

up

the issue in

their

respective

disciplines.

However,

not

until

the

I96os

and

'70s

did the field

accumulate the force of a

movement

movement. Nonverbal

communication

research was not an

unlikely

compatriate

to

the other

movements

of

the era: social

activism,

encounter

groups, the drug culture, and avant-garde performance. The emphasis was

on

process,

and

movement was

process par

excellence. The research of

40


3/14

Movement

Analysis

41

scientists like

Birdwhistell,

Albert

E.

Scheflen,

Edward

T.

Hall,

and

Daniel

N.

Stern was

eagerly

explored by performers

and

performance

makers

such as

Robert Wilson

(Brecht I978:32),

Steve

Paxton,

and Yvonne

Rainer

(Schechner

I973:I2I).

Scholars,

too,

sought

to

adapt

the

findings

of

non-

verbal

communication

research

(see

Schechner

1973;

Schechner with

Mintz

I973).

The

study

of movement

flourished

during

the late '6os and

'70s

because

of a

decisive

shift in

paradigms

from text to

performance,

from

speech

to

gesture,

from

passive reception

to active

perception/participation.

The

I98os

have not

sustained

the

momentum of the

movement

movement;

performance

studies

theory

and

methodology

is dominated

by

poststruc-

turalist

literary

theory.

As

humanist

thought

once

privileged language

over

the

body

as

the source of truth

and

identity, poststructuralist

thought

currently

privileges

the remove of the

spoken

word over the now

redefined

and

suspect literality

of the

performing body.

The

movement movement

notwithstanding,

nonverbal behavior has

al-

ways had a relatively low status in Western culture. Nonverbal behavior

was

considered

only supplementary

to

language;

it could

only

be defined as

not verbal. As

infant

psychiatrist

Stern

(1985)

pointed

out,

the nonver-

bal

portion

of

the human

communication

system

remains

unformalized

and thus

deniable;

people

are

only

held

accountable for

verbal

messages.

Among

the

most deniable

aspects

of

movement are formal

properties

that

are,

in

a

sense,

invisible and

yet

still observable.

Spatial

focus

and

interaction

rhythms,

for

example,

cannot be

touched,

yet

they

are

palpably

perceived.

Movement

(particularly

dance

movement)

is

both absence

and

presence,

becoming only

a

trace of itself

with the

passage

of time.

There

is

nothing

so

powerful

and

extraordinary

but at

the same time so

mundane

and

overlooked as

movement.

Just

consider the

equilibrium quickly nego-

tiated

in

a

crowded

elevator,

or an

infant's tearful

response

to its

mother's

silent

abruptness.

The

movement

qualities

and

dynamics

that LMA

addresses2 are

espe-

cially

deniable. As a

result,

LMA

has

had to

struggle

to

establish its

le-

gitimacy

within

the

larger,

scientifically

oriented

movement

analysis

community.

LMA

refers to

any system

developed by

Rudolf

Laban

(I879-

1958)

or

by

his

students,

such as

Warren

Lamb's

Action

Profiling System

and

the

Kestenberg

Movement

Profile.

Rooted

in

Laban's

theories

of Ef-

fort and

Space

Harmony,

LMA

flourishes in

the

Laban/Bartenieff

Institute

of

Movement

Studies

(LIMS)

in

New

York

City

and

at

colleges

such as

Ohio

State

University,

Goldsmith's

College

in

London,

and

the

Depart-

ment of Performance Studies at New York

University.

Laban's

influence

has

been felt in

many

spheres:

in

choreography,

through

pupils

such as

Mary

Wigman

and

Kurt

Jooss;

in

dance

criticism,

especially

the

American

descriptive

school of

the late

'6os and

'70s

(see

Dell

1977);

in

dance

preservation

and

reconstruction,

through

his

notation

sys-

tem;3

in

performance

scholarship, through

certification

programs

in

New

York

City

and

Seattle

and in

intensive

study

programs

at the

above

named

universities;

in

corporate

management,

through

Warren

Lamb's

Action

Profiling System

(Lamb

and

Watson

1979;

Lamb

and

Turner

1969);

in

human

development,

through

the research

of

Judith

Kestenberg

(1965,

1967);

and in

clinical

psychology

through

the

work

of

Irmgard

Bartenieff

(1980),

MarthaDavis (1984), and Marion North (1972). At LIMS research

also

focuses on

sports

and

dance

therapy.

Despite

its

considerable

achievements

within

LIMS,

the

larger

nonverbal

behavior

field has

been

reluctant to

accept

LMA

without

reliability

data


4/14

42

Ann

Daly

(Rosenfeld

I982:249).

In order for a

test

or tool

to be

accepted

in

the

sciences,

its

reliability

must first be established

empirically.

A reliable

in-

strument is one that

yields

the same

information for different observers

and

for the

same observer across time. In order

to

establish the

reliability

of

Effort-Shape Analysis,

Davis

(I987)

assessed two kinds of

reliability:

re-

peat reliabilityand interraterreliability. In the first part, she asked ratersto

observe

the

same movement

segments

on

separate

occasions.

In

the sec-

ond,

she

compared

the

responses

of a number of raters to identical

move-

ment

segments.

Davis found

that raters

generally

were

individually

consistent across

time,

and she found a

high degree

of

consistency

among

raters on

the

occurrence of

posture-gesture merging

and

on

strong,

direct,

quick,

and

sustained

qualities.

Davis summarized that the LIMS

Reliability project

did

produce

evidence

of

the

reliability

of

most

of the basic

concepts

studied

here. But

more

importantly,

it

generated

methods

and

tools

for

facilitating

ongoing

assessment

of

observer

agreement

within LMA

training

programs

and researchprojects (I987:I7). Similar reliability studies are being con-

ducted for

other Laban-based observational

systems:

the Action

Profiling

System

(Winter

1987),

the

Kestenberg

Movement Profile

(Sossin

1987),

and

the Davis

Nonverbal States Scales

(Davis

and Hadiks

1987).

Proof of

reliability

will

be

an

important step

toward

LMA's full

credibility

and

wider use

by

movement

analysts.

Beyond

LMA

reliability

as an

observational

tool,

movement

analysis

as

a

whole

needs to turn its attention to the

larger,

semiotic issues

concerning

the

relationship

between movement

and

meaning.

If

movement

analysis

is

to

become a standard

performance

studies

methodology, practitioners

must address three

basic

questions:

(I)

does movement have its own mean-

ing?;

(2)

if

so,

how does

movement

mean?;

and

(3)

if

so,

where is the

locus

of

meaning? Asking

these

questions

will lead us to a better

understanding

of

movement and also

provoke

the debate needed to

demystify

its role in

performance.

Does movement

have its own

meaning?

A

hundred

years

after Delsarte and

Darwin,

it

would seem hard to

believe that

the

very significance

of movement is still at issue. And

yet

the

fact

that movement is so

often left unconsidered

in

the

study

of

perfor-

mance

suggests

that the

question

is

still

unresolved. There was no doubt in

the

minds

of

nonverbal communication

researchers

n

the

I970s

that move-

ment had its own

meaning;

the

question

was, Whatkind?

Today

we can

find

in

their

work,

especially

in

Scheflen's,

the means to

go

further: to ask

what

social and

political

significance

movement has

in

our

culture and

social

order.

One

of

the

galvanizing

issues of nonverbal

communication in the

I970s

centered on

epistemological paradigms

and

their attendant

methodologies

(see

Skupien

I982).

On one

side there were those such as

Ekman who

studied

movement

as

individual

expression.

On

the other side there

were

those,

such as

Birdwhistell and

Scheflen,

who insisted

that

behavior

could

not

be

studied as a

sender-receiver

phenomenon;

they

argued

that behavior

is

a

socially

conditioned,

patterned system

of

interactions that cannot be

wrenched from its contexts. Movement, they insisted, communicated

more than

just

discrete referential

information.

Scheflen,

a

visionary

psychiatrist

whose

many

contributions to

the

field

of

nonverbal

communication have

yet

to be

fully

mined,

helped

to mend


5/14

Movement

Analysis

43

this

seemingly impassable

breach.

Behavior,

he

asserted,

can have

many

simultaneously

different

and sometimes

contradictory

kinds of

meanings.

In How

BehaviorMeans

(I974)-an

important

volume

for

anyone

interested

in

the

past

and the future of

nonverbal communication

research-Scheflen

outlined four

types

of

meaning:

(I)

denotative

references;

(2)

the

meaning

derived from the immediate context of the interaction or transaction; (3)

the

cultural

origins

and

personality

of the

speaker;

and

(4)

meta-acts that

comment on and

qualify

one's own

behavior.

Although

these

types

can

be

separated

for

purposes

of

analysis,

he

warned,

they

are

fully integrated

in

the act of

communication.

Scheflen

readily

conceded

in

the

introduction to How BehaviorMeans

that

its focus on

information

was

already

somewhat limited

and

traditional;

it is

now clear that

language

and

non-linguistic

behavior

have much

broader

roles

in human

affairs

than

simply

the

exchange

of

meaning

and information.

The

com-

municational system is a means of regulating transactionsof all types

of behavior and

of

maintaining

social

order

and social control

(1974:4).

His book

Body Language

and

Social

Order:

Communication

s BehavioralCon-

trol

(1972)

took this next

step,

demonstrating

with

prose

and

photographs

that behavior

is also

significant

in that it

maintains the dominant

social

order.

Scheflen,

in

effect,

went

beyond

description

and

methodology

to

social criticism. He concluded

that:

Any sweeping

claim that communication

has the

purpose

of

individual

expression

or social

change

must be

regarded

as

idealized

myth-or

else as a

political

gambit

to

give

us the illusion

of freedom

we

rarely

attain.

[.

.

.]

On the

basis of the data described

in this

book,

we

conclude that

the usual

purpose

of kinesic and territorial

systems

is

preservation

of the

existing

order

(1972:132).

Scheflen's

insights

into the

political implications

of nonverbal communi-

cation were

not

lost on

the

women's

movement,

which dovetailed with the

movement movement

in

the

I970s.

A substantial amount of research

into

socialized

gender

differences

in

nonverbal behavior

was undertaken

(For-

tier

1977;

Frances

1979;

Mayo

and

Henley

1981;

Weitz

I976;

Wex

1979).

For her book

Body

Politics:

Power,

Sex,

and

Nonverbal

Communication

1977)

Nancy

Henley investigated

the rich store of movement

analysis/nonverbal

communication

research to

lear

how movement communicates

power

and

maintains

asymmetrical

relationships, especially

in

regard

to

gender.

Gender is

a

doubly important

issue

in

movement

analysis,

not

only

because

movement

style

and

interaction

patterns

are

fundamental

ingre-

dients

in

the cultural

construction

of

gender,

but also because movement

itself has

traditionally

been

consigned

to the realm of the

feminine,

set

in

opposition

to

male

mastery

over

language.

Gender

dichotomy

is

still

a

very powerful underpinning

of

Western

theatrical

dance convention.

As

such,

feminist

inquiry

into the

way

dance

regulates

cultural

notions of feminine

and masculine

is

dangerous

to

aesthetic dance as we know it. Bill T. Jones and Johanna Boyce are two

choreographers

who

have

endeavored

to destabilize

gender

conventions on

stage,

experimenting

with forms

that are sometimes

uncomfortably

un-

familiar. In this

issue

Jones

and

Boyce

talk

with Carol

Martin

and

myself


6/14

44

Ann

Daly

about

the

significance

of

gender imagery

on the

stage.

How do

cultural

conventions of

movement

regulate

what

is

considered feminine

and

masculine in

dance? How do

we tease out these conventions and

recon-

struct

them

along

less

hierarchical lines? Can the

purpose

of

nonverbal

behavior-to

preserve

the dominant

order,

as Scheflen demonstrated-be

overturned?

How does

movementmean?

Once

one

accepts

that movement

possesses

and communicates

its

own

meanings,

the

next,

more difficult

question

is: how

does movement mean?

There

is no

simple

answer;

the idea of

a

body language, though

success-

ful for

the

popular

media,

is

an inaccurate reduction. Movement

is

a nexus

of

intersecting

elements and

systems-semantic, syntactic,

formal,

and

contextual-clustered

in

infinitely

complex

and

varying ways.

Three basic

principles coming

from

the

systems paradigm

of the

I970S

still hold fast.

First,

behavior

is a

patterned system.

Scheflen's

(1973)

classic film

analy-

sis of a

family

therapy

session

demonstrated

the

elaborately cyclical

nature

of

interaction,

from

gross-level postural

shifts which

demarcate

distinct

periods

of

behaviors to the

most

subtle shifts

of

the head and

eye

that

serve

as

regulatory

signals.

Second,

all behavior

in an

interaction

is seen as

functioning

in its

struc-

ture and

therefore as

contributing

to

meaning

as well.

Whether

consciously

intentional

or

not,

all

behavior-postural

shifts

or

the

relinquishing

of

direct

gaze,

for

example-potentially

functions to

establish,

maintain,

and

terminate

patterns

of

relationship

between interactants.

Third, meaning

is

created

by

the

relationships

between

behavior

and

its

many

layers

of

context.

A

smile,

for

example,

though

it is

generally

con-

sidered a

discrete affect

of

pleasure,

has no hard and

fast

meaning

(Bird-

whistell

I970:29-39;

Scheflen

1978).

Its

manner

of execution

might

signify

deference,

or

discomfort,

or even

disdain,

depending

on the

situation;

at

the same time it

may

also function in the flow of interaction. Its

meaning

also

varies from culture

to culture-a

Japanese

smile

does not

always

mean what an American smile means. The

significance

of

any given

behavior

can

only

be determined in its

individual, interactional,

institu-

tional,

and cultural

contexts

and in relation

to

behavioral

expectations,

for

what is not

done

may

be

as

significant

as what is done.

Each of

these

principles

is

applicable

to

representational

performance:

it,

too,

is

patterned

and

gains

meaning

from

everything

within

its

frames.

Form

and

structure are

important

expressive

elements of

any

performance,

whose

meaning

is

greatly

affected

by

its

relation

to the

contexts of

per-

formance

traditions,

to other works

by

the same

director

or

choreog-

rapher,

and

even to its

presenters,

its

physical

environment,

its

spectators,

and

its

patrons.

Most

nonverbal behavior

research

has,

of

necessity,

focused on

a

single

phenomenon

such as interaction

rhythm

or facial

expression

or

gesture.

Though

the

legacy

of

the

movement movement

is

indeed

rich,

the

many

different strains

of research are

rarely synthesized.

Individual

studies

need

to be

integrated

with each

other

and with LMA.

The

scientific

preoccupa-

tion with the what of movement and LMA's preoccupation with the

how of

movement need not be at

odds

with

each other.

They

are com-

plementary-like

intersecting

axes of a

single

grid.

One without the other

is an

incomplete picture

of how

movement

means. Eliot D.

Chapple

and


7/14

Movement

Analysis

45

Davis

have

made

an

important

step

toward

completing

the

picture

with

Expressive

Movement

and

Performance: Toward a

Unifying Theory,

their

contribution to this issue of

TDR. Their

essay synthesizes

cultural,

neurophysiological,

structural,

and

qualitative aspects

of

movement into

a

single

model of

what

they

call the

body's

infralanguage. Similarly,

part

of Susan Leigh Foster's project in ReadingDancing(1986), reviewed in this

issue

by

Philip

Auslander and Marcia B.

Siegel,

is

to outline the factors

that,

working together,

give

rise to

meaning

in dance.

The

challenge

is to

devise

a

theory

that

takes into account the

dynamic,

complex

nature of

movement.

If

a word

should be

sought

to

denote the

logic

or

harmony

of

movement,

wrote

Laban,

it

might

be the term

'confluence,'

because it is

the

peculiar

form

of the

flowing

together

of

several

movement

constituents,

which

gives

character

to

any

meaningful

dance-movement

(Laban

1971:3

).

Birdwhistell's kinesics

system

has not

proven

useful as

a

means

of

analyzing

the

through-time

phenomenon

of

movement because of

its

atomistic

approach

to behavior. Its

roots

in

the

unit-and-structure technique of structural linguistics tends to impose on

movement

an

inappropriately

static framework.

One of the

fundamental

strengths

of

LMA is

its

ability

to deal

with

the

processual

aspects

of

per-

formance.

Though

the

subject

of

Ekman's work is

discrete

categorical

affects

(facial

expressions

of

happiness,

disgust,

surprise,

sadness,

anger,

and

fear)

rather

than

full-body

motion,

his

research

into the links

between

emotion,

facial

expression,

and

the

autonomic

nervous

system

(Ekman,

Levenson,

and

Friesen

1983)

cuts to the

heart of

essential

questions

performance

scholars

are

asking

about the

nature of

representation.

In

this

issue Ekman

raises

some

of

these

questions

in his

summary

remarks

made at

a

New York

University symposium

on his

work

and

its application to performance

studies.

For

example,

what are

the

differences

between

performing

a

spon-

taneous

expression,

a

simulated

expression,

and

an

emblematic

expression

(Schechner

1988)?

How much

can

display

rules-or

performance

conven-

tions-tell us

about

a

given

culture

or

genre

of

performance?

Which

comes

first,

motion

or

emotion?

Or

rather,

where do

the two

meet and

form each

other?

Perhaps

the

most

fundamental

question

of

all,

and

one

that remains

dormant

and

scattered

amidst

the

literature,

is

the

principle

of

correspon-

dence or

rules of

transformation

linking

movement to

meaning.

That

is,

what

are

movement's

modes of

representation?

Is

movement

compatible

with

the

traditional

semiotic

typology: symbol

(arbitrary),

icon

(resem-

blance),

and

index

(cause-effect)?

Of

particular

importance

to

movement

analysis

are the

theory

of

iconism

and the

notion of

intrinsic

meaning.

If

iconic

similitude is

a

matter of

cultural

convention,

as

Eco

(I979)

has

convincingly

argued,

then

by

what

process(es)

are

new

conventions of

resemblance

achieved? How

did

Martha

Graham's

contraction-and-

release,

for

example,

come

to look

like

inner

turmoil

rather than

a torso

spasm?

And is

there,

as

Davis

(1975)

has

suggested,

an

intrinsic

meaning

to

some

formal

aspects

of

movement? If

so,

how is

the

intrinsic

aspect

of a

behavior

negotiated

with its

situational

and

arbitrary

characteristics

n

the

making

of

meaning?

Does this

intrinsic

meaning

override

context? Is it

universal

and

innate? How

might

it be

related

to

the

universal

categorical

affects?

The

question

of

how

movement means

involves not

just

the

phenome-

non

itself

but also

the

observer as

active

meaning-maker.

The

challenge

to

LMA

to

establish

empirical

reliability bespeaks

a

skepticism

not

only

about


8/14

46

Ann

Daly

the

susceptibility

of

movement

qualities

and

dynamics

to

replicable

de-

scription

but

also about the

perceptual powers

of its

observers.

Because

movement

is

so

overlooked

in our

culture,

movement

analysts

are

some-

times

viewed as virtual

mystics, divining

information that the

naked

eye

cannot

see,

despite

the fact

that movement

analysts

are

merely

capitalizing

on an ability we all exercise everyday to get through even the most mun-

dane interactions-an

ability

which

is

honed

extremely

early

in

life.

According

to

Stern

(I985),

all humans

show a

basic

capacity

to

perceive

and

interpret

the

most subtle of movement

qualities

during infancy.

His

empirically-based

theories corroborate

Laban's

insistence on

the

primacy

of

movement

qualities

both in

the creation

of

the self and

in

interpersonal

communication. Like

Laban,

he

emphasizes

the

importance

of

the

way

movement

is

performed.

There are a thousand

smiles,

Stern

wrote,

a

thousand

getting-out-of-chairs,

a thousand variations

of

performance

of

any

and all

behaviors

(1985:56).

His

findings

echo basic LMA

principles,

only

Ster has

behind

him

what

Laban did

not-the force

of

empirical

research.

Stern

rejects

the

accepted

psychoanalytic theory

that infants

start out in

pre-verbal 4

symbiosis

with

their mothers

and

progress

toward the dif-

ferentiation

of

selfhood that

ultimately

comes with

the

acquisition

of

lan-

guage.

Stern

posits

the

opposite:

a

progression

from

differentiation to

relatedness.

Very

early

on an

infant

gains

a sense of

self

through

its own

bodily

experiences.

One of the

ways

that

the

infant

then

begins

to

gain

a

subjective

self is

through vitality

affects,

a

concept

that echoes

Laban's

Effort

theory.

Vitality

affect is

Stern's

term for the

observable

way

behavior

is

enacted.

Distinguished

from

discrete

categorical

affects,

vitality

affects are

those

dynamic,

kinetic

qualities

of

feeling

that

distinguish

animate from

inanimate and

that

correspond

to the

momentary

changes

in

feeling

states

involved in

the

organic

processes

of

being

alive

(1985:156).

Like

Laban

before

him,

Stern

points

out that it is

not

just

a

smile

that we

interpret-it

is the

smile's

impulsiveness,

its

explosiveness,

or its

reluctance that

com-

municates.

The

vitality

affects that

Stern

describes-intensity,

time,

and

shape-are

strikingly

similar

to Laban's four

Effort

elements:

weight,

flow,

time,

and

space. By

attuning,

or

sharing,

vitality

affects,

infants

can

interact as a

self

with others.

They

can

share inner

experiences

on an

almost

continuous

basis.

For

Stern,

as

for

Laban who

not

only

worked

in

the field of

dance

but

also in

industry

as an

analyst

of

work

movement

patterns,

movement

runs

the continuum between art and behavior:

It

is

inescapable

that the

infant and child

first learn

about

vitality

affects

[.

.

.]

from their

interactions

with their own

behavior

and

bodily

processes

and

by

watching,

testing,

and

reacting

to

the social

behaviors

that

impinge

on

and

surround

them.

They

must also

learn

or

somehow

arrive at

the

realization

that there

are

transformational

means for

translating

perceptions

of

external

things

into internal

feel-

ings,

besides

those

for

categorical

affects.

These

transformations

from

perception

to

feeling

are

first

learned with

spontaneous

social

behaviors.

It

seems that

only

after

many years

of

performing

these

transformations and building up a repertoireof vitality affects is a

child

ready

to

bring

this

experience

to

the domain of

art as

some-

thing

that is

externally

perceived

but

transposed

into felt

experience

(I985:I60).


9/14

Movement

Analysis

47

At this

point,

just

what those rules

of

transformation

are-how

we

get

from

describing

an

action

as

direct and

quick

to

interpreting

it as

abrupt-

remains

undiscovered.

Where

s the

locus

of

meaning?

Movement

analysis

does not

always stop

at observation. LMA

has

been

established as an

objective

observational

tool,

but the

purpose

of

move-

ment

analysis

in

performance

studies

is

to

help yield

meaning-an

essen-

tially

subjective

undertaking.

As

with

any interpretive

methodology,

meaning

is

ultimately

mediated

by

the observer and

by

the

purpose

of

the

study.

As

Paul

Byers

cautions,

The

word observation

is a

joker

in the

deck

since we

cannot

ob-

serve

anything

directly-only

through

our

perceptions

(scientific

or

other)

which

implies

that some

part

of

observation

is

always

of

our-

selves

(and

what we find

analytically

is as much about our

unrecog-

nized

premises

as

about that which

we believe we are

studying)

(I986).

Profound in

any

discipline,

the

question

of

where

meaning

is

located

is

even

more

anxiously

posed

when

the

subject

matter

itself is so

slippery,

so

unlocatable. How much of

the

meaning

that

analysts

see in

movement

is

really

there,

and how much is

imposed

on it? Where is

the

boundary

between observation

and

interpretation?

Is

there

a

boundary?

Is

analysis

always

interpretive?

These

questions

are

particularly important

to an-

thropologists. Using

Laban's

Western-rooted

principles,

can we

do

justice

to

the

performance

of a

non-Western culture? As

questionable

as

Alan

Lomax's conclusions about the choreometrics

project

may

have

been,

the

coding

sheet that

Irmgard

Bartenieff and

Forrestine

Paulay

developed

as a

framework for

discerning

cultural

movement

style

is

a

valuable observa-

tional

tool

(Lomax,

Bartenieff,

and

Paulay

I968).

It is

true that

observation and

interpretation

are

part

of the same

percep-

tual

package,

but

training

enables

analysts

to

reflexively

discriminate be-

tween

the two.

Being

able to discern

the

elements of

movement and

understand

how

they

are

put

together

enables

movement

analysts

to

figure

out

why they

make

the

interpretations

they

do

and,

if

necessary,

to

recon-

sider them.

Movement

analysis

is

a means of

expanding

our

crosscultural

understanding,

not of

embalming

it.

Anthropologist Allison Jablonko and movement analyst Elizabeth Ka-

gan

take

up

these issues in

their

article,

An

Experiment

in

Looking:

Reexamining

the

Process

of

Observation.

They suggest

that

using

rather

than

suppressing

one's

cultural

movement biases is

a useful

starting point

for

analyzing

unfamiliar

movement;

in their

observational

project, they

found

that

they

could better

discern what

was

present

in

Maring

behavior

through

ts

differences from

their

own

culture's

behavior,

without

necessar-

ily

reading

meaning

into

those

differences.

Meaning,

as

Sally

Ann

Ness

points

out in

her

analysis

of

the

film Tro-

briand

Cricket:An

Ingenious

Response

o

Colonialism,

cannot be

determined

through

movement

analysis

alone.

By

itself,

she

writes,

it

cannot

go

beyond descriptive interpretations into explanatory statements of origin,

function,

and

meaning.

Nevertheless,

movement

analysis

can

yield

valu-

able

insights

that,

in

turn,

serve

as

the

basis for

a

more

extended and

integrated

interpretive

analysis.

In

Looking

at

Movement as

Culture,


10/14

48

Ann

Daly

Cynthia

J.

Novack

illustrates

the

ambiguity

as

well

as the

clarity

of move-

ment

as a cultural

phenomenon:

certain movement

qualities appear

through

time,

yet

meanings suggested

by

these

qualities

subtly

shift;

con-

trasting

movement

styles

exist

simultaneously,

sometimes

embodying

the

same

meanings

and

sometimes

opposite

meanings.

The

importance

of movement-in the

production

of the self and

in

the

production

of culture-can no

longer

be denied. Movement

analysis,

which

is

already

gathering

outward momentum

through

efforts such as the

LIMS LMA

Theory

Network,5

the

American Association

of Laban

Move-

ment

Analysts

(AALMA),

and

the

Dance and Movement

Analysis

section

of the

American Folklore

Society,

is faced with

an

opportunity

to

join

what seems to be

a

growing

interest

in

the humanities

for

the

study

of

the

body.6

Movement

analysis

needs to connect with these other

ways

of

looking

at the

body;

it is

only through

engagement

with other

methodologies

and theories that movement

analysis

can

make

its own

contribution.

Notes

I.

In

this

article use the term aesthetic ance o

distinguish

t from social

dance;

however,

other

authors

n

the field and

in this

issue

use terms such as

stage

dance

or

theatredance.

2.

Laban'sEffort

heory

dealswith the

dynamic

tructure nd

rhythm

of movement

(see

Bartenieff,Davis,

and

Paulay

1972).

He identified he

irreducible ormal

elementsof movement

(what

he called

Efforts )

as

weight,

time,

flow,

and

space.

His

theory

investigating patial

structure nd

relationships

s

known as

SpaceHarmony

or Choreutics.Laban's

oncept

of the

affinity

betweenthe ef-

fort,

or

energy,

nvested

n

movementand ts

spatialunfolding

was

developedby

Warren

Lamb nto the Americanmethod known as

Effort-ShapeAnalysis.

Laban's

heory

of

movement

successfully

voids

reductiveness.

eraMaletic's

Body, Space, Expression:

The

Developmentof Rudolf

Laban'sMovement

and

Dance

Concepts

akesclearhis holistic

approach,

here

ust

in termsof Effort:

The

significance

f

particular ualities

merge

within

the

macrostructure,

the context of a

movement

sequence,

and these

qualities ain meaning

when

they

are related

o what

precedes

and

what

follows. Thus the se-

quencing,phrasing,

or the

rhythm

of effort

sequences

s identifiablerom

several

points

of view:

a)

how

particular

ualities

build

up

with

regard

o the

optimalsequence

of attention space), ntention weight),decision time),andprecisionor

progression

flow).

b)

how effort

qualities hange

nto another

quality;

hese mutations an

occur

either

gradually

with the

change

of one

element,

more

surprisingly

with the

change

of

two,

or

they

can be contrastedwith the

change

of all

elements.

c)

what the

compositionalpattern

of

the

sequence

s,

such as

repetition,

rebounding,

ontrasts,

variations,

development.

d)

whether

he effort

sequence

s

performed

with

the whole

body being

attuned o it or whetherdifferent

qualities

are

performed

t the same time

by

different

body

parts

(I987:I03-04).

3. Laban'sheoriesof Effortand SpaceHarmonyas well as his notationsystem,

now called

Labanotation,

ere

meantto have both

descriptive

nd

prescriptive

applications.

The laws

of

movementhe uncovered

were not

only

to

help

us to

better

observe,

analyze,

and recordmovement

but also

to

help performers

x-

pand

their

personal ange

of

movement.


11/14

Movement

Analysis

49

Laban's

concept

of movement

as

expression

coincided

with that of

early

mod-

ern

dancers

like

Wigman

and

Jooss,

who embraced his

theory

for the

purpose

of

choreography.

Though expression

is no

longer

the dance

paradigm

it was

then,

choreographers

still use Laban's theories to

generate

movement. William

For-

sythe,

director of Frankfurt

Ballet,

for

example,

uses Laban's

principles

of

Space

Harmony

to

generate

movement for dances such as

Same

Old

Story (1987).

This issue deals with the

usefulness of

LMA

to the

performance

scholar

rather

than to the

performance

maker.

Notation,

too,

falls outside the

scope

of this

issue

(see

Topaz

1988).

4.

The term

pre-verbal

has

always

been

a

subtle

way

of

marginalizing

move-

ment: of

relegating

it to the

negative

role of other in

a world

supposedly

constructed

solely

in

language.

Stern's theoretical move is an

important

one to a

politics

of

movement

analy-

sis. His

argument

defuses the rhetoric of the

pre-verbal by

pointing

out that

(I)

the

infant does

experience

a

sense

of

self before

learning

to

talk,

(2)

the

infant

does

relate to

others

through

movement

before

learning

to

talk,

and

(3)

these

bodily

senses of self

and means of

interpersonal

communication

persist

even

after

the

acquisition

of

language.

Nonverbal

communication, then,

is not

pre-verbal

at

all. Movement and

language

share in the

process

of

creating

the self and com-

municating

with

others.

5.

The

LIMS LMA

Theory

Network

has

gathered

a

bibliography

(which

will

be

annually

updated)

of

unpublished

manuscripts

that deal with

LMA

theory.

It

was

published

in the

AALMA

February

1988

Newsletter.

6.

More

and more

scholarship

is

exploring

how the

body

is

inscribed in

various

institutions

and social

discourse:

medicine and

sexuality

(Foucault

1978;

Gal-

lagher

and

Laqueur

I987);

psychoanalysis;

art

and

photography

(Banta

1987;

Dijkstra I986);

patriarchy

(Suleiman

1986);

fashion

(Banner

I983);

health,

fitness,

and

sports

(Green

1986);

postmodernism

(Foster

1986;

Auslander

forthcoming;

and

Auslander's

review

of

Foster's

Reading Dancing

in

this

issue);

and

perfor-

mance

(Steinman

I986).

References

Auslander,

Philip

(forthcoming) Vito

Acconci

and the

Politics of

the

Body

in

Postmodern

Perfor-

mance. In

Postmodernism,

dited

by

Gary

Shapiro.

Albany,

NY:

SUNY Press.

Banner,

Lois

W.

1983

American

Beauty.

Chicago

and

London: The

University

of

Chicago

Press.

Banta,

Martha

1987 ImagingAmerican Women:Idea and Ideals in Cultural History. New

York:

Columbia

University

Press.

Bartenieff,

Irmgard,

with

Dori

Lewis

1980

Body

Movement:

Coping

with the

Environment.New

York:

Gordon

and

Breach

Science

Publishers,

Inc.

Bartenieff,

Irmgard,

Martha

Davis,

and

Forrestine

Paulay

1972

Four

Adaptations

of

Effort

Theory

in

Research nd

Teaching.

New

York:

Dance

Notation

Bureau.

Birdwhistell,

Ray

L.

1970

Kinesicsand

Context.

Philadelphia:

University

of

Pennsylvania

Press.

Brecht,

Stefan

1978 The Theatre

of

Visions: Robert Wilson. Frankfurt:

Suhrkamp

Verlag

Frankfurt am Main.

Byers,

Paul

I986

Personal

correspondence,

I5

December. New

York

City.


12/14

50

Ann

Daly

Darwin,

Charles

[I872]

I965

The

Expressionof

the Emotions n Man and

Animals.

Chicago:

Univer-

sity

of

Chicago

Press.

Reprint.

Davis,

Martha

1975

Towards

Understanding

he Intrinsic

n

Body

Movement.New York: Arno

Press.

1984

Nonverbal Behavior and

Psychotherapy:

Process

Research. In Non-

verbal Behavior:

Perspectives,

Applications,

Intercultural

Insights,

edited

by

Aaron

Wolfgang,

203-228.

Gottingen:

C.J.

Hogrefe.

1987

Steps

to

Achieving

Observer

Agreement:

The LIMS

Reliability Proj-

ect. MovementStudies: Observer

Agreement

2:7-19.

Davis, Martha,

and

Dean

Hadiks

1987

The Davis

Nonverbal States Scales

for

Psychotherapy

Research: Re-

liability

of LMA-Based

Coding.

Movement

Studies: Observer

Agree-

ment

2:29-34.

Dell,

Cecily

1977 A PrimerforMovementDescriptionUsingEffort-Shape ndSupplementary

Concepts.

New York: Dance Notation Bureau Press.

Dijkstra,

Bram

1986

Idols

of Perversity:

Fantasies

of

Feminine Evil in Fin-de-SiecleCulture.

New

York and Oxford: Oxford

University

Press.

Eco,

Umberto

1979

A

Theory of

Semiotics.

Bloomington:

Indiana

University

Press.

Efron,

David

[I94I]

I972

Gesture,

Race

and

Culture.

The

Hague,

Paris: Mouton.

Ekman, Paul,

Robert

W.

Levenson,

and

Wallace

V.

Friesen

1983 Autonomic Nervous System Activity Distinguishes Among Emo-

tions.

Science221:1208-1210.

Fortier,

Cheryl

E.

1977

Male-Female

Differences in Movement.

Dance

Therapy

Research:

Seven Pilot

Studies,

edited

by

C. Schmais

and

F.

Orleans,

115-I38.

New York: Hunter

College

Publication.

Foster,

Susan

Leigh

1986

Reading

Dancing:

Bodies and

Subjects

n

Contemporary

merican

Dance.

Berkeley:

University

of California Press.

Foucault,

Michel

1978

The

History of

Sexuality.

Translated

by

Robert

Hurley.

New

York:

Pantheon

Books.

Frances,

Susan

J.

I979

Sex

Differences in

Nonverbal Behavior. Sex Roles

5

(no. 4):

519-

535.

Gallagher,

Catherine,

and

Thomas

Laqueur,

eds.

I987

The

Making of

the

Modem

Body:

Sexuality

and

Society

in the

Nineteenth

Century.

Berkeley:

University

of California

Press.

Green,

Harvey

I986

Fitfor

America:

Health,

Fitness,

Sport

and American

Society.

New York:

Pantheon

Books.

Henley, Nancy

M.

1977

Body

Politics:

Power, Sex,

and Nonverbal

Communication.

Englewood

Cliffs,

NJ:

Prentice-Hall,

Inc.


13/14

Movement

Analysis

51

Kestenberg,

Judith

S.

1965

The Role of Movement

Patterns in

Development:

II-Flow

of

Ten-

sion and Effort.

Psychoanalytic

Quarterly34:5I7-563.

1967

The

Role

of Movement

Patterns in

Development:

III--The

Control

of

Shape. Psychoanalytic

Quarterly

36:356-409.

Laban, Rudolf

197I

Rudolf

Laban

Speaks

about

Movementand Dance.

Edited

by

Lisa

Ull-

mann.

Addlestone,

Surrey:

Laban Art of Movement

Centre.

Lamb,

Warren,

and

Elizabeth

Watson

1979

Body

Code:

The

Meaning

in Movement. Boston:

Routledge

&

Kegan

Paul.

Lamb, Warren,

and

David

Turner

1969

Management

Behavior.

New

York: International

Universities Press.

Lomax,

Alan,

Irmgard

Bartenieff,

and Forrestine

Paulay

I968

Dance

Style

and

Culture.

In Folk

Song Style

and

Culture,

edited

by

Alan

Lomax,

222-273.

Washington,

DC: American Association

for

the Advancement of Science.

Maletic,

Vera

1987

Body, Space, Expression:

the

Developmentof Rudolf

Laban's Movement

and Dance

Concepts.

New York: Mouton de

Gruyter.

Mayo,

Clara,

and

Nancy Henley,

eds.

1981

Genderand Nonverbal

Behavior. New York:

Springer-Verlag.

North,

Marion

1972

Personality

Assessment

through

Movement.

London: Macdonald & Evans.

Reich,

Wilhelm

1949

Character

Analysis.

New

York:

Farrar,

Straus & Giroux.

Rosenfeld,

Howard M.

1982

Measurement of

Body

Motion and Orientation.

In

Handbook

of

Methods

of

Nonverbal

Behavior

Research,

dited

by

Klaus R.

Scherer

and

Paul

Ekman,

199-286.

Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press.

Schechner,

Richard

1973

On

Kinesic

Analysis:

A Discussion with

Daniel

N.

Stern. The

Drama

Review

17,

no.

3

(T59):II4-126.

1988

Magnitudes

of

Performance.

In

Performance heory,

251-288.

New

York:

Routledge.

Schechner,

Richard,

with

Cynthia

Mintz

1973

Kinesics

and

Performance.

The

Drama Review

17,

no.

3

(T59):Io2-

io8.

Scheflen,

Albert

E.

1973

Communicational tructure.

Bloomington:

Indiana

University

Press.

1974

How Behavior

Means.

Garden

City,

NJ:

Anchor

Press/Doubleday.

1978

Susan Smiled:

On

Explanation

in

Family

Therapy.

Family

Pro-

cess:59-68.

Scheflen,

Albert

E.,

with Alice

Scheflen

1972

Body

Language

and Social

Order:

Communication s Behavioral

Control.

Englewood

Cliffs,

NJ:

Prentice-Hall,

Inc.

Skupien,

Janet

1982

Behavior as

Sign.

Unpublished manuscript.

Sossin,

K. Mark

1987

Reliability

of

the

Kestenberg

Movement Profile.

MovementStudies:

Observer

Agreement

:23-28.


14/14

52

Ann

Daly

Stebbins,

Genevieve

[1902]

I977

Delsarte

System of

Expression.

New York:

Dance Horizons.

Reprint.

Steinman,

Louise

1986

The

Knowing

Body:

Elements

of

Contemporary

erformance

nd Dance.

Boston:

Shambhala.

Stern,

Daniel N.

1985

The

Interpersonal

World

of

the

Infant:

A View

from

Psychoanalysis

nd

Developmental

Psychology.

New York: Basic

Books,

Inc.

Suleiman,

Susan Rubin

1986

The

Female

Body

in

WesternCulture.

Cambridge,

MA:

Harvard

Uni-

versity

Press.

Topaz,

Muriel,

ed.

1988

The

Notation Issue.

Choreography

nd

Dance: An

InternationalJour-

nal

I

(no.

i).

Weitz,

Shirley

1976 Sex Differences in Nonverbal Communication. Sex Roles2 (no.

2):

I75-84.

Wex,

Marianne

1979

Let's

Take

Back

Our

Space :

Female

and

Male

Body

Language

as

a

Result

of

Patriarchal

Structures.

Hamburg:

Frauenliteraturverlag

Her-

mine Fees.

Winter,

Deborah Du

Nann

1987

Field

Studies of Action

Profiling Reliability.

Movement

Studies:

Ob-

server

Agreement

:21-22.

Ann

Daly

is a

contributing

editor to

TDR. She has

written dance

criticism

for

TDR,

High

Performance,

Ballett

International,

and Women

and

Perfor-

mance.

daly-movement analysis r

Documents