JDSP 6 (2) Pp. 219 232 Intellect Limited Dec 2014

JDSP 6 (2) pp. 219–232 Intellect Limited Dec 2014

Journal of Dance & Somatic Practices

Volume 6 Number 2

James Hewison

Edge Hill University

Elsa Urmston

DanceEast Centre for Advanced Training

Risk and flow in contact improvisation: Pleasure, play and presence

Abstract

Grounded in Csikszentmihalyi’s flow theory, the focus of this study was to examinethe role of flow as a framework for optimizing the practice of risk-taking in theteaching and learning of contact improvisation in higher education, and to betterenable students to take the creative, physical and psychological risks associated withthat practice. A range of qualitative methodologies were employed including observation,analysis, writing, drawing and focus group discussions. Findings of thisstudy included: establishing shared learning environments, attending to languageand tone of delivery, and ensuring the development of scaffolded tasks for trust, non-judgement, optimal experience and pleasure to flourish.

Introduction

The risk-taking nature of contact improvisation (CI) is both a potential source

of intense pleasure and a barrier to fully immersed participation in the form.

The physicality of full-bodied weight-sharing sits alongside more subtle

movement vocabularies in which intimate personal space is utilized to initiate

new movement ideas, all of which can be difficult for inexperienced learners

Keywords

contact improvisation

dance

flow

risk-taking

teaching

learning

Grounded in Csikszentmihalyi’s flow theory (1990), the focus of this studywas to examine the role of flow as a framework in optimizing the practice ofrisk-taking in CI. The growth in interest and instance of CI, and improvisationgenerally, within the curriculum offered to undergraduate university performingarts, dance and theatre students in recent years, creates a viable context forexploring approaches to teaching and learning the form. By cultivating attentionon the activity in the moment, the aim of the project was to explore howthe autotelic characteristic of flow might support trust and non-judgement inthe teaching and learning of CI, especially amongst groups having varyinglevels of experience and confidence with the form.

The premise of this study began with conversations about flow. For both authors, flow was something physically experienced, associated with a strong sense of the pleasure of knowing what it felt like to be in tune with the momentumof the moving body, and of having ultra-awareness in the moment. Theconceptualization of flow as a central principle of CI, as suggested by Novack(1990: 121) within her phrase ‘going with the … momentum and flow’, resonatedwith Csikszentmihalyi’s (1992) notion of flow as a cognitive aspect ofoptimal experience.

Steve Paxton discusses this dual connotation of flow aspleasurable awareness of, and consciously fulfilled engagement in, the unfoldingmoment (1993). He explains his concerns in the early stages of developingthe emerging practice that was to become CI, for exploring techniques thatwould increase a sense of consciousness and experiential knowledge, even inmoments where the speed or risk of the movement blurred the conscious mindtowards a reflexive function. Paxton pointed to shared affirmative responses tospecific moments of pleasurable practice amongst the early CI participants asevidence to support the success of this early movement research. His descriptionof these post-practice reflections corresponds with both Novack’s ideaof ‘going with the … flow’, and with Csikszentmihalyi’sconceptualization ofoptimal experience:

Moments of the duet, typically manifesting as ‘accidental’ and flowingstreams of movement, were for both of us pleasant, highly stimulating,and elemental. With other partners, more confirmations. It was worthpursuing.(Paxton in Cooper Albright and Gere 2003: 178)

In our professional practice of CI, we have found similar physical connections

between these two conceptualizations of flow: that of knowing thephysical flow of energy that allows the connection from moment to unfoldingmoment, and the flow of optimal experience in the physicality of doing. Thus,our dialogues began as a means to explore the potential of flow in unlockingrisk-taking potential in the teaching and learning of CI with mixed-abilitystudents in higher education (HE).

However, how should risk-taking be taught? In the performing arts, creativerisk-taking is encouraged as a means of exploring the cutting edge, andin teaching contexts this often involves urging students to explore new ideasand starting points. Yet, institutionally, and individually, there is perhaps anambiguous relationship with certain forms of risk, and the mitigation of risksthrough the application of control measures is a common feature of someteaching contexts. In CI, the risk factor resides at the intersection of these twopositions. The fundamental elements of the form place the physical body atthe heart of the creative plane, but equally may also place the dancer at risk.There is the risk of injury, of unintended intimacy and the potentially biggerrisk, in terms of a student’s perception of their own ability to achieve, of failingto connect with our movement partners and thereby getting it wrong. So,might risk be the double-edged sword that cuts a sway through to the finerthings in this form of dancing, but which might leave us with a little scar?

Risk and flow

Risk is a core construct in CI (Banes 2003: 77) and has two implications. Theproxemics of the form demands the releasing of control of personal space,which in many cultures may be perceived as inappropriate in certain circumstances,particularly amongst more inexperienced dancers, such as is the casewith some students within HE who may be encountering CI for the first time.

The second implication is the more traditional understanding of risk in CI, relating to lifts and weight-sharing, which inexperienced students may distinguishas something unachievable and potentially hazardous. Yet, by embracingrisk, we potentially unlock those moments of genuine pleasure through theexperience of our body in flight, falling and responding reflexively in the midstof the unexpected. Risk enables the discovery of passages of movement thatcannot be rationally conceived, repeated or set into repertoire. Risk connectsphysical and mental processes by inviting the participants to rely on their reflexactions and to discard, temporarily, usual habits, norms and practices.

‘Going with the … momentum or flow’ (Novack 1990: 121) points towards a willingness to resist the pre-selection of movement material in favour ofa privileging of the potential of the unfolding moment. It demands immersionin the activity, which in itself may be a risk, and shares resonance withCsikszentmihalyi’s definition of flow as a ‘subjective, mental state contributingto optimal experience, which is characterized by complete absorption in an activity at a given moment in time’ (1990: 8). Csikszentmihalyi goes on to suggest that activities that engender the flow experience tend to be intrinsicallyrewarding and ‘justified in the present’ (1990: 69), encouraging theindividual to become involved in the utilization of their current skills and theexploration of new ones.

Flow is conceptualized by nine dimensions, with a wide range of existing qualitative and quantitative studies in sport (Jackson 1992), theatre (Martin and Cutler 2002; Silberschatz 2013), music (Bakker 2005), leisure activities (Boniface 2000) and the workplace (Csikszentmihalyi and LeFevre 1989) supporting the notion that these nine dimensions are associated with the experience of flow:

‘Achieving a balance between skills and challenge’ by matching thechallenge of an activity to the individual’s skill set. Should the challenge be too great, then anxiety tends to manifest. Conversely, when the challenge is too little, apathy can set in. As skill and experience develop,the relationship between skill and challenge shifts and there is a reciprocal relationship with the individual’s perception of risk. Without taking a step into the unknown, how does the dancer extend their skills and rise to the challenge presented?

• ‘Merging of action and awareness’ explains an event that appears to take on a life of its own, and becomes knowingly pleasurable. In CI, the result is tantamount to the emergence of the third person in the duet: something that only lives between the dancing partners.

• ‘Having clear goals’ is integral to the flow experience in knowing what is to be achieved and how. Improvisation cannot make explicit the outcomes of the dance material at the start of the creative process. Yet CI has implicit rules that govern its form, and the unspoken physical negotiation between partners allows goals to emerge in the moment.

• ‘Receiving unambiguous feedback’ is a key construct of the flow experience.

In CI, feedback may include internal, somatic feedback from the body’s place in space and time, and external feedback from the dancing partner as they adjust and adapt to the changes in weight. In learning contexts, dancers may also perceive external feedback from the workshop facilitator and peers, and from audiences in performance situations.

• ‘Concentration’ is one of the most often cited dimensions of the flow experience

(Csikszentmihalyi 1990: 58)’ whereby one focuses on the task and is not distracted by other thoughts and tasks, particularly those of a negative nature. Paxton (2003: 177) referred to this as the pursuit of ‘full consciousness’as a means of learning from the immersion in practice.

• ‘The paradox of control’ refers to the control one has over what one does, when in flow. Any worry about losing control diminishes. When taking risks, the individual may perceive a loss of control (Lupton and Tulloch 2002), which may preclude the attainment of flow. However, we were curious to find out: if flow can be supported within the learning experience, might risks be more readily undertaken? Early research (Lyng

1990; Celsi et al. 1993; Ewert 1994) focused on risk-recreation activities such as mountaineering and skydiving in which flow was often perceived as an outcome of participating in these high-risk activities. Celsi et al. reported that skydivers perceived a sense of involvement, which transcended every-day, mundane experience (1993: 11). Clearly, the skydivers relinquished control of their bodies in relation to gravity. Yet, they ‘delimited this context to a manageable level of uncertainty’ (1993: 12), by controlling as many of the physical and psychological parameters as possible. For example, they rehearsed as an ensemble their aerial movements on land to develop physical and psychological confidence in self and others. In CI, the same might be true, as risks in the physical and psychological processes need to be contextualized. Self-confidence needs to be supported, and whilst some physical control needs to be relinquished within CI to access the risks that come with the form, there are opportunities for control to be exerted and for fear of losing control to be overcome.

• ‘Loss of self-consciousness’ parallels tenets of CI practice that focus on the notions of mindfulness, non-judgement, and a deepening sense of consciousness and investment in process (Banes 2003). Paxton’s desire to discover greater levels of consciousness over what he regarded as reflexive and therefore less overtly conscious action was an early pedagogical interest. However, the act of observing consciousness could also potentially be an impediment towards fully open and immersed contact exchanges and may reconstitute self-consciousness. His observations led him to the conclusion that ‘there is an important difference between knowing–noticing and noticing–knowing’ (Paxton in Cooper Albright and

Gere 2003: 182). Knowing–noticing suggests a skilled system of reporting on consciousness. Noticing–knowing suggests a similarly reflective and pleasurable system through which the dancer engages with affirmative impressions of their dance behaviour.

• ‘The transformation of time’ is a key construct of the flow experience, in that an individual’s experience of time often shifts in flow states. In CI, this is often experienced via the sense of dwelling in shared physical contact, so that a real-time momentary passing of limbs extends in perceptual terms to something felt in slow motion and extreme detail.

• ‘Autotelic experience’ typifies the flow experience and is considered the most salient dimension of flow (Jackson 1992). It refers to the intrinsic enjoyment one has in doing an activity for its own sake. Research suggests that the autotelic aspect of flow may initiate a sense of significance and fulfilment as we seek to replicate it (Privette and Bundrick 1991). It might be suggested that as skills develop in response to increasing challenges, the autotelic dimension of flow is perpetuated and risks perceived with less anxiety. This hypothesis forms the essence of this enquiry; the facilitation of autotelic experience can enable students to engage in the teaching and learning of risk-taking in CI.

Enabling risk and flow

Research in flow and education is diversifying, particularly in the developmentof curricula and educational frameworks that seek to support positive functioning (Hefferon and Boniwell 2011; Elkington 2010a). Further, Whitson and Consoli (2009) outline the importance of creating positive and enjoyablelearning environments, which enable flow and improve student engagement, whilst Elkington (2010b) suggests that enabling flow can support students in meeting the demands posed by learning environments.

Csikszentmihalyi (1990: 43–44) also explains the importance of feeling secure in contributing towards one’s satisfaction in achieving goals. Thus it would seem that environments that enable enjoyment, autotelic experience and non-judgement, might support students to take risks in their learning and acquisition of skills.

Yet, enabling flow-based experiences in others brings innate complexity, especially when journeying students towards risky activities. Elkington (2012: 23) iterates the importance of perceiving learning as a journey, in which autotelic experience can play a part. He suggests that transformational learning, in a flow-based environment, ‘ushers in new ways of seeing’ that encourages students to move towards the edges of their knowledge and expertise.

This framework resonates with the learning context of CI as a shared learning space, and echoes Lavé and Wenger’s (1991) notions of communities of practice.

The teaching and learning of CI is predicated on a social system of collective practice, where the roles of facilitator and student blur within a reciprocal learning process.

Whilst there is a paucity of explicit research in flow and risk-taking in dance per se, there have been studies on how dance education may support risk-taking in creative and divergent-thinking contexts (Chappell et al. 2011; Stinson 1997). The focus of such studies reveals the importance of play in supporting creative risk-taking, and there are no doubt crossovers with the teaching and learning of CI.

Play is a cornerstone of CI practice (Paxton in Brockway 1980) and Csikszentmihalyi (1990) cites play as probably one of our earliest experiences of flow. Certainly in Stinson and Bond’s study (2000: 52), children explain their ‘superordinary’ experiences of dancing. Stinson and Bond suggest that when the boundaries of dancing and playing are blurred, students may become more engrossed and space for choice, freedom, a sense of control, intrinsic motivation and a sense of challenge serve to enable more engaged learning. Perhaps, also, risk-taking can flourish as part of this conduciveenvironment.

Thus, the focus of this study was to explore the facilitating factors of flow in aiding the risk-taking aspects of CI from a teaching and learning perspective, particularly with students with little prior experience of the form.

Questions surrounding the nature of the participants’ flow experiences were posed in relation to how these moments were facilitated by the researchers and the pedagogical environments created, and through tutor observations and students’ perceptions of their increased propensity towards risk-taking.

The workshop process

A total of twenty undergraduate students (male: n=6; female: n=14; mean

Age=20 years and two months) from two higher education institutions

(HEIs) participated in the project, with ethical approval granted from a university ethics committee. Participants were recruited by open invitation to each institution’s student body, specifically those studying performing arts undergraduate degree courses. The participants had a range of dance experience, spanning formal training in, for example, ballet, modern and tap dance in local dance schools over numerous years, to contemporary dance training within their undergraduate studies. Of the students, three did not have formal dance training before this workshop. Thus, a range of experienced and non-experienced dancers participated in the project; however, all had some prior knowledge of CI as a form, although little physical experience.

There were two day-long practical workshops conducted at eachHEI. In each workshop, the students were informed of the broad aims of the project, in order that purposeful data could be collected (Lincoln and Guba 1985), and all were introduced to the fundamental principles of flow as outlined above through initial discussion and introduction to the practical sessions.

Workshop content and rationale

The workshop content was devised as a developmental format of warm-up,skill development and improvisation. However, the key challenge to the workshop facilitator was to remain open to the unfolding situation and to seek opportunities to explore something new in each situation. Thus, the practical work evolved by remaining playful, responsive and fluid in the workshop delivery. These elements of risk-taking were not intended to be overtly product-driven, but to actively encourage curiosity in the familiar.

Tasks were categorized as open- or closed-ended. Open-ended tasks were defined by outcomes that were less predictable, thereby allowing freedom of opportunity for participants to respond more independently. Closed-ended tasks were more prescriptive and ordered towards specific goals and results, perhaps offering a degree of safety and security to participants.

There were two pedagogical frameworks that informed how tasks were facilitated. These included aspects of flow theory itself, and Epstein’s (1989) developmental paradigm for supporting student motivation.

Conceptualized as the acronym TARGET, six principles were focused on to create a conducive motivational climate towards flow and risk-taking in the learning process:

• ‘Task’: refers to ensuring that tasks are varied and offered individual challenge to the participant. Epstein proposes a task involvement in activity and a focus on fun.

• ‘Authority’: encouragesteachers to hand over decision-making and leadership roles to participants whenever that might be appropriate.

• ‘Recognition’: suggests that participants’ individual development should

be acknowledged.

• ‘Grouping’: encourages cooperative learning contexts in which participants work together to develop new knowledge and understanding.

• ‘Evaluation’: works towards evaluative models, which measure development against personal goals.