Democratizing the Choreographic Process: Using a Feminist Pedagogical Approach to Dance Making

Introduction

When conceptualizing my most recent work /saiərən/, I had one goal: create a dance using imagery in poetry. I had clear methods and strategies for how I would generate the movement from the imagery, but I did not have a clear goal for how to connect the dancers to the content. Because of this, the first half of the process was a struggle. The dancers struggled to learn my choreography and I never liked it on them because they didn't move the way I wanted them to move. I spent a number of rehearsals trying to get them to move like me rather than making choreography. While, in other contexts this approach would be necessary, I soon realized that with my background in student-centered teaching, I was not a fan of the approach I was taking. After self-reflecting, I realized I had failed to make the choreography relevant to the dancers because I was just expecting them to copy and regurgitate movement. There was a disconnect between what I thought the role of a teacher and the role of a choreographer should be; a difference between what I thought the role of a learning process and a choreographic process should be. I then recalled a statement Dr. Ilana Morgan said to me my first semester, “if teaching is your strength, treating everything like teaching.” I questioned how I could turn my rehearsals and choreographic process into an educational experience.

As I recognized the disconnect between the dancers and the content, I was drawn to educational theories and pedagogies. I felt very authoritarian in my approach to the choreographic process and I wanted to democratize the experience. Authoritarian is described as “enforced submission to an authority figure” (Smith 1998, 125). I required the dancers to submit to my aesthetic and execute movement exactly like me, with little to no contextual background for understanding. According to John Dewey, two values are essential to a democratic society: mutual interests and interactions between groups (1916, 86). Upon reading this, I realized I was not creating a democratic environment for the dancers, which resulted in the disconnect. Initially, I used my solo studio practice to develop movement based on the poems and then taught the movement to the dancers. I changed my approach and instead of using the studio practice to make movement, I used the time to further develop the strategies I would use in order for the dancers to create movement. I explored how I engaged with the poem and then gave space for the dancers to do so in the rehearsals. 

I wanted to shift from being sole creator and choreographer to creating a collaborative work. Mary Fitzgerald describes collaboration as “a process of learning and creating in which the voices of all participants are present and valid” (2017, 2). I wanted to engage in collaboration because it’s how I want to operate as a teacher. In order to do this, I employed feminist pedagogical strategies to my choreographic process. According to Sherry Shapiro’s feminist pedagogy, “education must start from the lived experiences of our students’ lives” (1998, 9). In order to diminish the disconnect between the dancers and the content, I felt it was important to have the content come from the dancers. Sherrie Barr and Wendy Oliver advocate for feminist pedagogy saying that it “calls for a holistic approach to teaching, a framework in which mind, body, and spirit of teachers and students are present and engaged (Barr and Oliver 2016, 99).  Based on these feminist pedagogy discourses, I developed three areas of my choreographic process: discussion, workshop, and creation. These areas are nonlinear and often shift between each other throughout my process. For the purpose of this paper, I will only discuss my creative process after the change occurred. 

 

Discussion, Workshop, Creation

Feminist pedagogy argues that students, or in this case dancers, being able to explore their own ideas and engage with other points of view assists in shared learning experiences (Barr and Oliver 2016, 106). Because of this assertion, I began the process engaging in discussion with the dancers. I explained my vision for the work. I printed copies of the source poem that we were going to use for the work; “To a Black Dancer in the “Little Savoy”” by Langston Hughes. I gave them background context about the poem, Hughes, and the Harlem Renaissance era. From there, we analyze the poem individually. I gave them prompts to assist in the analysis such as finding words that stood out, extracting common themes, and finding meaning in the poem. We engaged with the poems collectively, sharing personal connections and insights. Tanya Raman states that “discussion has been found to be an exploratory way of forming an understanding of new information and experience” (2009, 84-85). Through these discussions, new ideas were revealed to me as it became a space for teaching and learning to happen simultaneously for each individual. For example, in the poem there is reference to a woman’s breasts. In my own analysis, I saw this as a sexual reference. Through discussion, one dancer brought to light the idea of the reference being one of “life-giving and life-sustaining.” This perspective gave a new outlook and added the theme of power to the work, one that would not have existed without the collaboration. 

Barr and Oliver describe learning in feminist pedagogy as a “process of creative exploration” (2016, 99). This element was key for me democratizing the choreographic process and brought me to the idea of workshop. In this context, workshop is the time allotted for engage in a task individually and collectively. After discussions, as a facilitator, I gave space for the dancers to explore the insights gained from the discussions in their bodies. This time allowed them to embody the poetic imagery in a creative movement exploration. I wanted them to feel the images without me telling them how they should feel. During one rehearsal, I had them each imagine a woman that they know or admire that embodied the woman described in the poem. We spent time simply walking like the woman of their choice. This allowed for them to personalize the poem for themselves and “get into character” without me telling them who to be or how to be. I gave them improvisational prompts that I developed from my solo studio practice to engage with and further indulge in the embodiment of the poetic imagery. 

            In creation, we used movement material created during their workshop time in order to create sections for the final dance. One example of this is seen in my process where we created gestures for the descriptor “wine-maiden” from the poem. Each dancer shared their gesture with the group and it became the motifs throughout the work. At another time, I had the dancers create movement from each line of one of the poems during their workshop. The poem was ten lines long so each dancer’s combination reflected the ten lines. I randomly numbered each dancer and numbered each line of the poem. Each line was a different dancer and we created an accumulation phrase based on each of the dancers’ movement in the order of the dancers. For example, the first dancer would teach their movement for the first line of their combination. Then the second dancer would teach only the second line of their combination and then we continued with the rest of the dancers and cycled back through until all ten lines were completed and a ten-lined phrase was created. My goal with this experience was to have each dancer feel they were able to share in the process choreographically. Democratic and feminist pedagogy celebrates autonomy and mutuality; develops the individual and the collective. This element of the process validates the contribution of each dancer, values their active participation as group, and stimulates investment in the group’s accomplishments (Barr and Oliver 2016, 101) (Fitzgerald 2017, 5).

Reflection: Celebrations and Challenges

Teacher reflection, or in this context, choreographer reflection, is a large component of evoking feminist pedagogy. In order to continue developing a democratic learning environment, I felt that it was not only important I reflected on myself, but that I received dancer feedback as well. At the end of the choreographic process, after the performance, I gave the dancers a survey to complete anonymously. From my survey results after being asked about the process, one dancer described her experience and what she most enjoyed: “I got to come up with some of my own movements. My input was always asked.” Another dancer celebrated the process because she was able to create and voice her perspective along with the other dancers. Overall, the dancers seemed to enjoy the constant questioning and explorations that developed throughout rehearsals.

Although I set out to incorporate these democratic feminist strategies, they were not always successful for the dancers. During a rehearsal one dancer mentioned her struggle to understand what the dance was supposed to be about because I had never told her. When I explained the goal was for her to develop her own meaning, she struggled because this was not a norm for her. Because of her previous experiences as a dancer working with a choreographer, this new approach was foreign to her. One dancer mentioned in the survey her dislikes: “Moments of confusion, this is just my personal preference, I like to have something clear. However, it led to exploration.” Though I am glad I gave the dancers a new experience, finding clarity in my execution is something I have not yet developed.

Even with attempting to democratize the process, I realized that I still had a higher level as the outside facilitator and the one who’s “grade” and image was to be affected. I wasn’t actually in the work with them at the same level. I often would be sitting out on the side giving them directives. Also, the dancers still had to produce content that I liked; I would often edit portions of their phrases that I didn’t think fit or didn’t enjoy.  Tanya Berg states the feeling of surveillance impacts student production and outcome and though the issue never arose in the survey, I question if the dancers ever felt the need to impress (2015).  I can recall a dancer constantly asking for validation in her interpretations and execution of the movements. She would always ask, “but is it right?” These instances lead me to believe at times the dancer performed for my approval rather than for her own exploration and contribution. A similar reality is discussed by Fitzgerald where she discusses the conflict of editing collaborative work and the engagement and placement of the facilitator. She also mentions the contradictory possibility of students believing that she is not invested in their learning if she gives too much space and freedom without comment (2017, 6).

As I stated in the introduction, at the very beginning of my process I felt very authoritarian in my process initially. Although I still had final say, I believe this engagement of democratizing the choreographic process through feminist pedagogy aided me in shifting from an authoritarian to an authority figure; one that allowed dancer choice while still implementing creative boundaries (Smith 1998). I used the present participle tense of the word democratizing in the title of the paper because I believe this approach to choreography is an ongoing process. As my reflection section shows, there are pitfalls to my approach. The process was never completely democratic as there were times I still held authority and power, however, my intentional shift in choreographic process using a feminist pedagogical approach allowed for opportunities to share mutual interests and interactions between varied groups; the two components Dewey deems essential to democracy. 


Works Cited

Barr, Sherrie; Oliver, Wendy. 2016. “Feminist pedagogy, body image, and the dance      technique class.” In Research in Dance Education, 97-112. Routledge.

 

Berg, Tanya. 2015. “The pedagogy of the observed: how does surveillance technology influence dance studio education?” Research in Dance Education, 230-244. Routledge. 

 

Dewey, John. 1916. Democracy and Education. New York: The MacMillan Company

 

Fitzgerald, Mary. 2017. “Community to Classroom: Reflections on Community-Centered Pedagogy in Contemporary Modern Dance Technique.”Journal of Dance Education, 1-7. Routledge.

 

Råman, Tanja. 2009. “Collaborative learning in the dance technique class.” Research in Dance Education, 75-87. Routledge.

 

Smith, Clyde. 1998. “Authoritarianism in the Dance Classroom.” In Dance, Power, and Difference: Critical and Feminist Perspectives on Dance Education, edited by Sherry B. Shapiro, 123-145. Champaign: Human Kinetics.

 

Shapiro, Sherry B. 1998. Dance, Power, and Difference: Critical and Feminist Perspectives on Dance Education.Champaign: Human Kinetics.